The Peninsula Foundation

Category: India

Economic Relevance of Quad as a Regional Strategic Forum

The QUAD, a grouping of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia, began as a “Tsunami Core Group,” an impromptu group formed in response to the devastating Boxing Day tsunami of 2004. This core group brought together the four nations to swiftly mobilise and coordinate multilateral disaster relief and humanitarian assistance operations. The first meeting of the initial QUAD took place in May 2007 during the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) meeting in Manila. The meeting was characterised as an “informal grouping” that discussed themes of mutual interest to the dialogue participants (Buchan & Rimland, 2020). The group was established to deal with the immediate challenges posed by the tsunami and was never intended to become permanent. However, early cooperative efforts sparked a debate about QUAD’s overarching goal. When Australia withdrew from the QUAD in 2008, it ceased to exist. It was revived in 2017 against the backdrop of an increasingly assertive Chinese posture, and the emergence of the idea of the Indo-Pacific as a single maritime zone.

The first QUAD meeting, after its revival, happened on 12 November 2017, when the four ‘like-minded’ partners discussed seven key issues: the rules-based order in Asia; freedom of navigation and overflight in the maritime commons; respect for international law; enhancing connectivity; maritime security; the North Korean threat and non-proliferation; and terrorism (Jain, 2022). The QUAD aims to bring diverse perspectives together in a shared vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific, and it strives for a region that is free, open, inclusive, healthy, and anchored in democratic values.

Economic Potential

There are numerous reasons to increase economic engagement within the QUAD nations—the four countries, with a combined population of over 1.8 billion people, represent a quarter of the world’s population and over $30 trillion in GDP. In 2018, trade between the four countries totalled more than $440 billion, with nearly $6 trillion in trade with the rest of the world. QUAD intends to use both public and private resources to construct high-quality infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific region. According to the MEA’s website, since 2015, QUAD partners have invested more than $48 billion in regional infrastructure development. The commitment of the QUAD to regional infrastructure development can be strengthened by integrating India into the existing ‘Australia-Japan-US Trilateral Infrastructure Partnership’ and by broadening their reach into the Indo-Pacific region (“Fact Sheet: QUAD Leaders’ Summit,” n.d.). Except for India and the United States, the remaining two countries are also Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) members. This shows that, notwithstanding territorial and security differences, trade and commerce are still the primary focus (“Economic Dimension Key to QUAD Success”, 2021). Further, the Covid-19 pandemic has harmed the global economy, including the QUAD nations, in areas ranging from employment to investment. Thus, by bolstering their economic ties for greater freedom and cooperation, the group will facilitate a faster recovery from the pandemic’s effects.

The Indian Ocean, not the Indo-Pacific, is central to India’s vision. In the short term, India’s engagement with the Indo-Pacific framework will be primarily diplomatic and economic and will be constrained by the Indian Ocean’s strategic primacy and constraints on its sea-power projection

QUAD and the Indian Economy

India’s strong economic ties with the QUAD economies are reflected in its bilateral trade volume with each member. During 2019-2020, these three economies accounted for 15% of India’s total trade. The United States contributes the most with 11%, followed by Japan and Australia, with 2.15 and 1.6 per cent, respectively. Further, India already has a free-trade agreement with Japan, which was implemented in 2011, and negotiations with Australia and the United States are ongoing. India can now use this critical multilateral forum to help facilitate trade negotiations and increase economic activity with member economies (“Economic Dimension Key to QUAD Success” 2021).

According to Lunev and Shavlay (2018), the emergence of China, the expansion of India’s economic and strategic clout, and, most importantly, the growing importance of the Indian Ocean as a strategic trade route carrying nearly two-thirds of global oil shipments and a third of bulk cargo, have entailed a shift in the security architecture from the Asia-Pacific to the Indo-Pacific. These factors have contributed to the rise of regional stakeholders advocating for a free and open Indo-Pacific, resulting in the re-establishment of the QUAD. However, India’s maritime interests and strategies are at odds with those of the other QUAD members. The Indian Ocean, not the Indo-Pacific, is central to India’s vision. In the short term, India’s engagement with the Indo-Pacific framework will be primarily diplomatic and economic and will be constrained by the Indian Ocean’s strategic primacy and constraints on its sea-power projection.

The South and East China Seas, the Western Pacific, and the Indian Ocean are of particular concern to the United States and Japan. Unless and until these disagreements are resolved, QUAD’s effectiveness as an entity will be called into question

Tokyo Summit

The Tokyo Summit is the QUAD Leaders’ fourth interaction since their first virtual meeting in March 2021, in-person Summit in Washington DC in September 2021, and virtual meeting in March 2022. The Tokyo Summit took place against the backdrop of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict and its repercussions. The joint statement issued following the QUAD summit in Tokyo on May 24, 2022, is more comprehensive than the first three summits. It has attempted to clarify the broad framework for cooperation by outlining eight specific areas. These include Peace and Stability; Covid-19 and Global Health Security; Infrastructure; Climate; Cybersecurity; Critical and Emerging Technologies; QUAD Fellowship; Space; and Maritime Domain Awareness and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) (Luthra, n.d.). A comprehensive QUAD joint statement and the launch of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) are key developments of the Tokyo summit. QUAD leaders also announced a maritime initiative to combat illegal fishing at the Tokyo summit, and a pledge to invest $50 billion in infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific to combat China’s growing power (“QUAD Joint Leaders’ Statement”, 2022).

The QUAD has long been criticised for lacking a common purpose or a substantive agenda. Furthermore, none of the objectives cited as reasons for bringing the four states together are unique to the QUAD. Other actors and institutions in the region already exist for these purposes. Thus, there is a need for QUAD partners to better articulate their distinct rationale for cooperation and collaborative efforts.

India is a key player due to its naval power and strategic location, and should thus be an active participant. However, there are differences in areas of interest among the QUAD nations, complicating its effectiveness. The South and East China Seas, the Western Pacific, and the Indian Ocean are of particular concern to the United States and Japan. Unless and until these disagreements are resolved, QUAD’s effectiveness as an entity will be called into question. While India is frequently portrayed as the holdout — and has recently been the most vocal — objections have come from other countries as well. The potential impact on Sino-Australian relations continues to make some in Australia nervous. Beijing’s reaction has factored into American caution as well, as has the preference for a trilateral format (Madan, 2017).

India requires investment, attractive financing for infrastructure, technology, and access to key raw materials, particularly rare earth elements, among the QUAD nations. QUAD’s other members are looking for market access and dependable investment destinations. Broadening QUAD’s current strategic focus to strengthen economic ties under the partnership’s auspices would be a win-win situation for all countries involved in such a scenario.

Bibliography

Buchan, P., & Rimland, B. (2020). Defining the diamond: The past, present, and future of the quadrilateral security dialogue. Defining the Diamond: The Past, Present, and Future of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue | Center for Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://www.csis.org/analysis/defining-diamond-past-present-and-future-quadrilateral-security-dialogue

“Economic Dimension Key to Quad Success.” 2021. The Statesman. February 23, 2021. https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/economic-dimension-key-quad-success-1502953752.html.

“Fact Sheet: Quad Leaders’ Summit.” n.d. Www.mea.gov.in. https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/34319/Fact+Sheet+Quad+Leaders+Summit.

JAIN, Purnendra. 2022. “India’s Changing Approach to the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue.” East Asian Policy 14 (01): 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1793930522000046.

Lunev, Sergey, and Ellina Shavlay. 2018. “Russia and India in the Indo-Pacific.” Asian Politics & Policy 10 (4): 713–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12430.

Luthra, Girish. n.d. “Forward from the Tokyo Quad Summit and IPEF.” ORF. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/forward-from-the-tokyo-quad-summit-and-ipef/.

Madan, Tanvi. 2017. “The Rise, Fall, and Rebirth of the ‘Quad.’” War on the Rocks. November 16, 2017. https://warontherocks.com/2017/11/rise-fall-rebirth-quad/.

“Quad Joint Leaders’ Statement.” 2022. The White House. May 24, 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/24/quad-joint-leaders-statement/.

Rahman, Mohammad Masudur, Chanwahn Kim, and Prabir De. 2020. “Indo-Pacific Cooperation: What Do Trade Simulations Indicate?” Journal of Economic Structures 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-020-00222-4.

Feature Image Credits: Resilinc

July 25, 2022
Reality of India’s Performance as put Forth by the Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

India ranked 117 out of 180 countries as per the latest “The State of India’s Environment Report 2021” released by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in June 2021, while it ranked 87th out of 115 countries in the Energy Transition Index (ETI) released by the World Economic Forum in 2021

Taking adequate measures to combat climate change and global warming has become a key priority of nation-states today. With a global understanding that reducing greenhouse gas emissions, achieving carbon neutrality, and switching to renewable sources of energy are the ways forward for sustainable development, countries around the world, including India, have made various pledges and commitments to achieve defined targets in respect of climate change and environmental protection. While developing countries have called for the adoption of the principle of ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities’ (CBDR–RC), India, as the third largest carbon emitter in the world, has considerable responsibility in enacting the much-needed changes. In the budget presented for 2022-23, the Indian government has pledged to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2070, and achieve a non-fossil fuel energy capacity of 500 GW by 2030. It further seeks to meet 50% of the energy requirements from renewable sources, while also reducing the total projected carbon emissions by 1 billion tonnes and reducing the carbon intensity of the economy to less than 45%. These are stiff targets to achieve, maybe even impractical in the view of some analysts.

While the Indian government has celebrated the inauguration of various policies and schemes which would contribute to these lofty goals, India’s performance according to global indices reveal an immediate need for a change of tactics. India ranked 117 out of 180 countries as per the latest “The State of India’s Environment Report 2021” released by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in June 2021, while it ranked 87th out of 115 countries in the Energy Transition Index (ETI) released by the World Economic Forum in 2021. Similar positions have been held by the country in other notable indices like the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) where India was ranked 10th out of 60 countries and the European Union released by German Watch. Thus, India’s rank of 180 out of 180 countries in the Environment Performance Index came as a surprise to many.

The Environment Performance Index presents a data-driven summary of the state of sustainability around the world using 40 performance indicators based on climate change performance, environmental health, and ecosystem vitality. It is released biennially by the Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy and the Columbia University Centre for International Earth Science Information Network in partnership with the World Economic Forum. India’s position in the latest 2022 report is a step down from EPI-2020 where it ranked 168th with a score of 27.6.

India’s aggregate score according to EPI -2022 is 18.9 with the report stating that “India slips to the bottom of the rankings for the first time, with increasingly hazardous air quality and quickly rising greenhouse gas emissions.” Further, according to EPI, India also ranks poorly in terms of rule of law, corruption control, and government performance. On its release, the results have been contested by the Indian government which claimed that many of the indicators used are based on “unfounded assumptions” and that these were based on “surmises and unscientific methods”.

According to the concerns raised by the Indian government, Projected GHG Emissions Levels in 2050 which is the new indicator in the Climate Policy Objective, is calculated in the Environment Performance Index using the average rate of change in emissions over the previous ten years rather than modelling that takes into account a longer time period and which considers other factors like the level of renewable energy capacity and usage, extra carbon sinks, energy efficiency and the like in the individual nations. While the principle of ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibility and Respective Capabilities’ (CBDR–RC) has been enshrined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledges the different capabilities and differing responsibilities of individual countries in addressing climate change, the EPI report’s emphasis on data and statistics have led to the overlooking of this principle in the course of its analysis. The time period used by the EPI of 10 years with regards to projected Greenhouse Gas emissions is unlike other indices like the CCPI (Climate Change Performance Index) which uses a timeframe of 5 years for its calculations (to take into consideration the new and renewed commitments made by countries at the 2015 Paris conference). The CCPI in comparison also uses a past trends indicator under the category of GHG emissions (with a 40 % weightage) where historical GHG emissions (Co2, Methane, Fluorinated gases, Nitrous Oxide) are considered with reference to the base year of 1990 as put forth by the Kyoto Protocol. The absence of acknowledgement of India’s historical emissions which have been minimal i.e.: from 1870 to 2019, its emissions have added up to a minuscule 4 percent of the global total is also noticeable in the EPI findings.

The exclusion of the Indian Forest cover, which is far greater than many countries, as a vital carbon sink is a significant downfall of the EPI analysis

Forests and wetlands have been globally acknowledged as vital carbon sinks with great effectiveness in controlling carbon levels. The world’s forests absorb a total of 15.6 gigatons of CO2 per year although these figures are threatened by threats like deforestation, natural disasters, and forest fires. According to the latest Forest Survey of India report, the total forest cover in India (2022) is 7,13,789 square kilometres which are 21.71% of the total geographical area. In comparison, Denmark, which topped the EPI rankings 2022, officially possesses 608,078 ha or 6080.78 square kilometres of forest corresponding to 14.1% of the land area. The exclusion of the Indian Forest cover, which is far greater than many countries, as a vital carbon sink is a significant downfall of the EPI analysis.

Wetland ecosystems have been scientifically proven as one of the most biologically productive areas on the planet. They provide a wide range of important services, such as food, water, groundwater recharge, water purification, flood moderation, erosion control, microclimate regulation and landscape aesthetics outside of being viable carbon sinks. According to the National Wetland Inventory and Assessment compiled by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), wetlands are spread over 1,52,600 square kilometres (sq. km) in India which is 4.63 percent of the total geographical area of the country. The difference in topography of the high-ranking countries in the index with India can mean that the effect of wetlands and forests can have a significant impact on India’s rankings as opposed to countries like Denmark where wetlands make up only 0.6 % of the land area where the impact is comparatively much lower.

The government further argues that the equity principle is given relatively little weightage in the form of statistics such as GHG emission per capita and GHG emission intensity trend which can be found to be grounded in the EPI’s disregard of the CBDR principle. The EPI rankings with regards to GHG emissions are also in contrast to other indices like the CCPI where seven G20 countries received a very low rating for their performance, including Russia (with 165 ranking with respect to GHG emissions and an overall ranking of 112), Australia (with 171 ranking with respect to GHG per capita and an overall rank of 17), the United States (with 167 ranking with respect to GHG per capita and overall rating of 43), and Canada (with 169 ranking with respect to GHG emissions and overall rating of 49).

While the EPI utilises indicators like Pesticides and N mgmt index under the category of agriculture and solid waste, recycling and ocean plastics under the category of waste management, other indicators such as agricultural biodiversity, soil health, food loss and waste are also not included in the report despite the fact that these are critical for developing nations with significant agrarian populations. Furthermore, the index computes the geographical distribution of various ecosystems but makes no mention of their efficiency and functioning with regard to climate change which can have a significant impact when gauging factors like biodiversity, waste management, air quality and fisheries.

India installed 15.4 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy projects in 2021 alone but operations of these projects remain a fraction of these capacities

Thus, it can be found that certain critiques of the Environment Performance Index are well founded and must be acknowledged, and respective changes must be introduced to improve the reach, relevance, and functionality of the index. However, even with the addition of these factors, the fact remains that India’s performance on climate action is still underwhelming with significant gaps between capabilities and action in reality. India installed 15.4 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy projects in 2021 alone but operations of these projects remain a fraction of these capacities. Therefore, the government must concentrate on redoubling its efforts to meet its 2030 targets and use the reports of various indices including the Environment Performance Index as a gauge of the country’s closeness to achieving its promised goals.

Feature Image Credits: The New York Times

July 20, 2022
Declining Number of Tibetan Refugees in India

His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and his followers, were welcomed by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru with open arms whose government helped them settle in India as they fled Tibet, following the Chinese invasion

Introduction

India is the largest democracy in the world, with a multi-party system, and a diverse set of cultures. It has a long tradition of hosting a large number of refugees. India has been particularly supportive of Tibetan refugees, right from the start of the Nehruvian era in the early 1950s. The number of Tibetan refugees living in India is estimated at well over 150,000 at any given time. However, a recent survey conducted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in India, in association with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), showed that only 72,312 Tibetans remain in the country.

In India, Tibetans are considered to be one of the most privileged refugees unlike other refugees in the country. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and his followers, were welcomed by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru with open arms whose government helped them settle in India as they fled Tibet, following the Chinese invasion. That period saw a large influx of Tibetans towards India as they sought asylum. The Tibetan refugees have been allotted settlements where they continue to live under the management of the MHA and the Tibetan government-in-exile, or the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA). These facilities have contributed to a sense of community-living and have enabled them to keep their culture alive till today. Tibetan refugees in India have enjoyed freedom, which was impossible in their own land under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rule. However, after residing in India for almost seven decades now, recent data estimates a large decline in the number of Tibetan refugees. Therefore, this study examines the theoretical concerns and empirical findings of refugee problems in general as well as distinctive features of the Tibetan refugee experience in India.

The status of Tibetans in India is determined under the Passports Act 1967, Foreigner’s Act of 1946, and the Registration of Foreigners Act of 1939 which refer to Tibetans as simply “foreigners”. These provisions cover everyone apart from Indian citizens thus, restricting refugees’ mobility, property, and employment rights. Recognizing this, the Government of India sanctioned the Tibetan refugees with the 2014 Tibetan Rehabilitation Policy (TRP) which caters to the issues faced by them and promises a better life for Tibetans in India. An array of provisions under this policy include land leases, employment, trade opportunities such as setting up markets for handicrafts and handlooms, housing, etc. to all Tibetans in possession of the RC (Registration Certificate). Further, certain policies applicable to Indian citizens are extended to Tibetan refugees as well. For instance, the Constitution of India grants the right to equality (Article 14) and the right to life and liberty (Article 21), and India is obliged to provide asylum as outlined in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Despite these facilities and the cordial relationship that has been built over 70 years between the Tibetans and Indians, the question raised by many, including Indian authorities is – why is the number of Tibetans migrating out of India increasing?

With increased awareness about Tibetan refugees and their problems, many countries have opened their borders to Tibetans by introducing numerous favourable policies

The various push and pull factors- motivation for migration

The Tibetan Exit continues to grow with about 3000 refugees migrating out of India every year. The support and admiration of His Holiness the Dalai Lama gained worldwide has been partly due to the exhibition of the rich culture and traditions of Buddhism. With India being the birthplace of the religion, Tibetans in India caught the limelight in the global arena, leading many researchers to study their migration patterns to India. Attention is now being placed on Tibetans exiting India despite years of strong cultural and social bonding. General migratory trends of humans can be analyzed using eminent scholar Everett Lee’s comprehensive theory of migration of 1966. The term ‘migration’ is defined broadly as a permanent or semi-permanent change of residence. Many factors tend to hold people within the area or attract people towards it, and there are others that repel them from staying. This theory could also be applied to the Tibetan migratory trends by looking at the “Push and Pull” factors proposed by Lee. The ‘push theory’ here encompasses the aspects that encourage the Tibetans to emigrate outside India, and the pull theory is associated with the country of destination that attracts the Tibetans to emigrate. Ernest George Ravenstein, in his “Laws of Migration”, argues that ‘migrants generally proceed long distances by preference to one of the great centers of commerce and industry and that ‘the diversity of people defines the volume of migration’. Ravenstein’s laws provide a theoretical framework for this study, as Tibetans tend to migrate out of India with a special preference to Europe, the USA, Canada, and Australia. With increased awareness about Tibetan refugees and their problems, many countries have opened their borders to Tibetans by introducing numerous favourable policies. For instance, with the Immigration Act of 1990, the Tibetan community in New York grew exponentially. The US Congress authorised 1000 special visas for Tibetans under the Tibetan Provisions of the U.S. Immigration Act of 1990, leading to the rampant growth of Tibetan migrants in the US. The first 10 to 12 Tibetan immigrants arrived in the U.S. in the 1960s, and then hundreds in the 1970s. Today, New York alone consists of roughly 5,000 to 6,000 Tibetan immigrants.

Former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper agreed to resettle 1,000 Tibetans from Arunachal Pradesh in 2007 (CTA 2013) encouraging substantial migration. The fundamental intention of migration is to improve one’s well-being from the current state.

The motivation for migration can be analysed by correlating origin and destination places with push and pull aspects. Push factors in the place of origin generally include lack of opportunities, religious or political persecution, genocide, hazardous environmental conditions, etc. The pull factors at the destination, on the other hand, are environment responsive to the push variables. The flow of migrants between the two points is hindered by intervening obstacles or intervening opportunities, which can also affect the motivations of individuals while migrating.

Fig. 2 Lee’s (1966) push-pull theory in graphic form

Fig.2 shows there are two points in the flow of migration – a place of origin and a destination, with positive and negative signs indicating the variables of pull and push factors with intervening obstacles between them. Both the origin and destination have pluses and minuses which means each place has its push and pull aspects. Every migrant is influenced by the positives of staying and the negatives of leaving a particular place. The factors to which people are essentially indifferent are denoted as zeroes. The logic of the push-pull theory is that if the pluses (pulls) at the destination outweigh the pluses of staying at the origin, as shown above, then migration is likely to occur.

The three main pull factors or the aspects that pull Tibetans out of India are – economic opportunities, better policies for Tibetan refugees outside India, and world attention.

Better opportunities and more earning capacity are the primary reasons for the migration of Tibetan refugees out of India. They claim that there are better options, job security, better facilities, and more accessible resources. All this put together expands their level of awareness. People outside treat them as equals which makes the living situation a lot easier, whereas in India, except for a handful who are well educated, Tibetans are mostly given very low-paid jobs such as servants, waiters, cleaners, etc.

Second, concerning open policies in other countries, it can be argued that the migratory trend of Tibetans started in 1963 when Switzerland allowed 1,000 Tibetan refugees who were then the country’s first non-European refugees. Their population is now around 4,000. Further, in 1971, under the Tibetan Refugee Program (TRP), the original 240 Tibetans arrived in Canada, which now is a community of 5,000.

Third, the migrants and His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s transnational travels have helped to promote Tibetan culture and give the West exposure to the richness and traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetans also migrate to spread awareness. Sonam Wang due, a young Tibetan activist from India who was the President of the Tibetan Youth Congress in Dharamshala, says that he moved to the U.S. to protest more effectively and freely. An important day known as the Tibetan Lobby Day is conducted annually in the U.S, where hundreds of Tibetans along with their supporters assemble to urge their respective governments and parliamentarians to continue their support for Tibet and the Tibetan people.

Fig. 3 Tibetan Lobby Day in the U.S

On the other hand, some factors tend to push people away from their origin country. Push factors from India are mainly restrictions and social reasons. There are many Tibetan schools and colleges in the subcontinent with a large number of Tibetan students. According to the Planning Commission’s data on Tibetan Demography 2010, there is growing unemployment among Tibetan youth, with levels as high as 79.4 percent. When students return to their settlements after graduation, only 5 percent of them get absorbed in employment in the Tibetan community, as jobs here are scarce with mediocre salaries. Finding a job in the Indian community is further restricted by the authorization issue which holds that they are not Indian citizens. Many of them join the Indian Army, work in call centers, or become nurses as these are a few employment opportunities in which they can earn reasonably to support their families. Those without RC are restricted while applying for business documents and procuring licenses, and the youths who have acquired education and skills are pushed out of India as they search for better job opportunities. The younger generation of Tibetans in India realizes the discrimination they face and are motivated to migrate elsewhere for a better life. Although there is Article 19 of the Indian Constitution for freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully, when it comes to Tibetans’ protesting, they are restricted in every possible way. Tibetans must secure a legal permit before any protest outside Tibetan settlements. This varies from one region to another, for instance, Tibetans in Dharamshala can protest peacefully as that is their officially recognized place by the Central government. In spite of having authorized Tibetan settlement areas in Chandigarh, Delhi, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka, etc., protests conducted in these states are not tolerated and require permits because the decision-making power is solely vested in each of the State governments.

According to Mr. Sonam Dagpo, a spokesperson for the CTA, the main reason for the decline of refugees in India is because “Tibetans are recognized as ‘foreigners’, not refugees”. The Indian government does not recognize Tibetans as refugees primarily because India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention. This Convention relates to the status of refugees and is built on Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes the right of people seeking asylum in other countries because of persecution in their own countries. Another important reason is the lack of awareness among Tibetan refugees that they are the stakeholders to benefit from the TRP. However, implementation of the policy is left to the discretion of the respective States, which makes it problematic. Many Tibetans use India as a transit spot. They enter India primarily to meet His Holiness the Dalai Lama and study here, after which in pursuit of a better life and the West’s influence, they tend to resettle abroad. Nepal in recent times, generously funded by the Chinese, started strictly patrolling the borders with India and are sending back Tibetans to their homeland. Therefore, this is also one of the reasons why Tibetans entering India have decreased drastically.

The introduction of the Rehabilitation Policy (TRP) in India has decreased the burden on Tibetans. However, efforts are to be made to widen the level of awareness about the policy among the stakeholders and States

Conclusion

Egon F. Kunz (1981) theorized about refugee movements and formulated two categories of refugee migrants namely – ‘Anticipatory’ and ‘Acute’. Anticipatory migrants are people who flee in an orderly manner after a lot of preparation and having prior knowledge about the destination, the latter category of migrants is those who flee erratically due to threats by political or military entities and from persecution in their place of origin. Tibetans migrating out of India are largely Anticipatory refugee migrants well aware and seeking betterment. The introduction of the Rehabilitation Policy (TRP) in India has decreased the burden on Tibetans. However, efforts are to be made to widen the level of awareness about the policy among the stakeholders and States.

Tibetans are mostly living and visiting India from abroad by and large because of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Considering his advancing age and the number of Tibetans migrating out of India on the rise, will there be a time when Tibetans will give away the hold of solidarity by living in large communities in India? This is the burning question that lies ahead in the future of India-Tibet relations.

Feature Image Credits: Karnataka Tourism

Fig. 1 Source: https://reporting.unhcr.org/document/2681

Fig 2 Source: Dolma, T. (2019). Why are Tibetans Migrating Out of India? The Tibet Journal, 44(1), 27–52. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26921466

Fig 3 Source: https://tibetlobbyday.us/testimonials/2020-photographs/

July 19, 2022
On Metaverse & Geospatial Digital Twinning: Techno-Strategic Opportunities for India

[powerkit_button size=”lg” style=”info” block=”true” url=”https://admin.thepeninsula.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/TPF_Working-Paper_MetaGDT-1.pdf” target=”_blank” nofollow=”false”]
Download
[/powerkit_button]

Abstract:

With the advent of satellite imagery and smartphone sensors, cartographic expertise has reached everyone’s pocket and we’re witnessing a software-isation of maps that will underlie a symbiotic relationship between our physical spaces and virtual environments. This extended reality comes with enormous economic, military, and technological potential. While there exist a range of technical, social and ethical issues still to be worked out – time and tide wait for no one is a metaphor well applied to the Metaverse and its development. This article briefly introduces the technological landscape, and then moves over to a discussion of Geospatial Digital Twinning and its techno-strategic utility and implications. We suggest that India should, continue on the existing dichotomy of Open Series and Defence Series Maps, initiate Geospatial Digital Twins of specific areas of interest as a pilot for the development, testing, and integration of national metaverse standards and rules. Further, a working group in collaboration with a body like NASSCOM needs to be formed to develop the architecture and norms that facilitate Indian economic and strategic interests through the Metaverse and other extended reality solutions.

Introduction

Cartographers argue that maps are value-laden images, which do not just represent a geographical reality but also become an essential tool for political discourse and military planning. Not surprisingly then, early scholars had termed cartography as a science of the princes. In fact, the history of maps is deeply intertwined with the emergence of the Westphalian nation-state itself, with the states being the primary sponsors of any cartographic activity in and around their territories[1].
Earlier the outcome of such activities even constituted secret knowledge, for example, it was the British Military Intelligence HQ in Shimla which ran and coordinated many of the cartographic activities for the British in the subcontinent[2]. Thus, given our post-independence love for Victorian institutions, until 2021 even Google Maps had remained an illegal service in India[3].

One of the key stressors which brought this long-awaited change in policy was the increased availability of relatively low-cost but high-resolution satellite imagery in open online markets. But this remote sensing is only one of the developments impacting modern mapmaking. A host of varied but converging technologies particularly Artificial Intelligence, advanced sensors, Virtual and Augmented Reality, and the increasing bandwidth for data transmission – are enabling a new kind of map. This new kind of map will not just be a model of reality, but rather a live and immersive simulation of reality. We can call it a Geospatial Digital Twin (GDT) – and it will be a 4D artefact, i.e. given its predictive component and temporal data assimilation, a user could also explore the hologram/VR through time and evaluate possible what-if scenarios.

[powerkit_button size=”lg” style=”info” block=”true” url=”https://admin.thepeninsula.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/TPF_Working-Paper_MetaGDT-1.pdf” target=”_blank” nofollow=”false”]
Read the Full Paper
[/powerkit_button]

July 9, 2022
Ukraine Crisis and India’s Rejection of Western Binary Construct

“India has already chosen a side, its own, where it is happy, willing and most importantly capable of staying put”

The current crisis in Ukraine has, or at least threatened to, shift the focus away from two equally urgent geopolitical conundrums – the Taliban usurping power in Afghanistan and China increasing its assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. One almost gets the feeling that the timings of these events couldn’t have been better scripted. Needless to say, all three of them are intertwined in a complex web of events where the major world players are looking to outmanoeuvre each other. These events hold serious ramifications for India, a country which under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has looked to continuously raise its international profile as a major and responsible power in the region. Out of the three, India is a serious stakeholder in the Afghan equation and the Indo-Pacific construct, with even the Ukraine crisis putting the world’s focus on India.

Derek Grossman, writing for the Foreign Policy magazine, observes that due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing crisis, “Modi’s multipolar Moment Has Arrived”. He even sees India as ‘the clear beneficiary of Russia’s war’. Grossman says that by not condemning Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and refusing to toe the Western line in sanctioning Moscow, India has in fact elevated its global stature. He suggests each of the major powers from the US to China to Russia has been vying to have India on its ‘side’. This assumption is not limited to just Grossman alone but many Western analysts assume that India is vying for a side. But this is exactly where Grossman fails to understand the basic objective of India’s foreign policy. India’s External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar’s remarks at the recent GLOBESEC 2022 Bratislava Forum throw light on this ‘misunderstanding’ on the part of Grossman and analysts of his ilk. Jaishankar, to a question regarding the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict that in case India must pick a side, who India will side with – the US or China, quipped “I don’t accept that India has to join either the US axis or the China axis. We are one-fifth of the world’s population, the fifth or sixth-largest economy in the world, and India is entitled to have its own side and make her own choices devoid of cynical transactions but based on India’s values and interests.” In the same forum, he also remarked that India is not “sitting on the fence” on the Ukraine issue (a reference to Biden’s remark of India being ‘shaky’) and is in fact merely “sitting on its ground”. Jaishankar’s remarks emphasize India’s policy of strategic autonomy and of India not being a lackey of any power or axis. Meaning India has already chosen a side, its own, where it is happy, willing and most importantly capable of staying put.

“Somewhere Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems.”

But what Grossman does get right is in his usage of the term ‘Multipolar’. India indeed views the world as multipolar today. Instead of clinging to either pole of the binary world order, India desires to be one of the poles itself. So, then what explains the West’s adamancy or incapability to understand India? Even this has been partly answered by Jaishankar himself as he says, “Somewhere Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems.” And this is exactly why I mentioned Afghanistan and the Indo-Pacific at the very outset. It is not to say that an India desiring to be a globally recognised power shouldn’t be concerned about Ukraine, but to understand the fact that, for India, a “messy” US withdrawal from Afghanistan and an ever-aggressive China lurking large on its borders are far greater challenges that cannot be met by choosing sides, rather India has to meet those challenges on its own strength. India simply doesn’t have the luxury of joining Axis A against Axis B or vice versa. Among many other things, India needs Russia to balance out China and for its strategic interests in Afghanistan and Central Asia; India needs the US to cement its role in the Indo-Pacific and create a strong deterrence against China; while India also needs to partner with China and Russia in climate change politics as well as limit Western dominance over the global financial system.

But it is also true that today, India’s strategic interests find greater convergence with that of the US, ranging from countering extremism in the Af-Pak region to checking China’s rise and securing a free and open Indo-Pacific with the help of “like-minded” nations in the region like Japan and Australia in the QUAD grouping. With regards to Russia, relations between the two traditional partners have cooled down a little especially because of Russia’s hobnobbing with Pakistan to secure its interests in Afghanistan and India’s growing ties to the US. Given the fact that Russia is speculated to become increasingly dependent on China as the war in Ukraine wages on, India’s manoeuvrability stands even more limited. Ever since the start of the war, India has tirelessly tried to explain to its Western counterparts the need to re-focus on the Indo-Pacific. Perhaps the bigger challenge for the democratic world is China’s unilateral attempts to change the status quo in the region. Russia’s threat is largely military in nature and is a headache majorly for its European neighbours. But the Chinese threat is global and all-encompassing ranging from economic to military to security to cultural. Additionally, for India, the Taliban in power next door doesn’t evoke any pleasant memories as anti-India forces might be on the loose given the Taliban’s proximity to Pakistan and its ties with anti-India forces.

India must solidly guard against being labelled in any camp and should steadfastly pursue its own path. India’s recent actions of abstentions in the UN against Russian aggression at the same time as Prime Minister Modi making a whirlwind tour of Europe to calm Western nerves augur well for its strategic objectives. The signing of the US-led Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) in the recently held QUAD summit in Tokyo also serves India well vis-à-vis China. A recent visit of an Indian delegation to Afghanistan, ostensibly to oversee aid distribution, suggests that New Delhi may be willing to work with the Taliban regime, thus providing the latter with some legitimacy and the former some flexibility. To be recognised as a major global power, India should de-link from all geopolitical binaries and work towards becoming the Third Pole, maybe taking a cue from the Himalayas.

Feature Image Credits: Economic Times

June 24, 2022
“Aapada mein Avasar”: Examining India’s Engagement with the International Community Amidst the Pandemic

[powerkit_button size=”lg” style=”info” block=”true” url=”https://admin.thepeninsula.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/TPF-Issue-Brief-Aapada-mein-Avasar-1_compressed-2.pdf” target=”_blank” nofollow=”false”]
Download PDF
[/powerkit_button]

Abstract

Health security has often been considered an issue of “low politics”. However, in the past two years, the global economy has suffered the most since the Great Depression and global supply chains have been hampered. The developed countries were caught off-guard at par with the rest of the world with global resource inequities at display. As the developed world resorted to “medicine nationalism” and “vaccine nationalism,” their credibility as “global leaders” was sharply questioned. Amidst this, the allegations of the pandemic’s origins generated reactions from an emergent China which stopped concealing its geopolitical ambitions and adopted an unapologetically aggressive posture. Moreover, the credibility of a prominent international organization, the World Health Organization, in terms of its inability in notifying and managing the pandemic was heavily criticised. Each of these occurrences having emerged from a global health crisis has unexpectedly altered the prioritization of matters in the international order, and thereby international diplomacy.

With the developing and least developed countries deprived of critical medical supplies due to hoarding by developed countries – India’s active engagement in medical diplomacy in the initial phase garnered international appreciation. While it cannot be looked at in a transactional sense, it visibly helped India push for its geopolitical interests in the middle of a global crisis – finding the adequate avasar (possibilities) in the ongoing aapada (crisis). Although flaws on the domestic front existed during the first wave, their impact on India’s medical diplomacy was limited. However, a domestic crisis during the second wave turned out to be an eye-opener and prominently impacted foreign policy initiatives. Considering the lessons so learnt and applied in managing the third wave, this paper examines the tremendous domestic potential of India, while also looking at its historical legacy. In doing so, it emphasises the relevance of domestic affairs as a determinant of successful medical diplomacy outreach – thereby impacting the larger foreign policy objectives.

Introduction

While health security has often been relegated as a low-priority issue in the geopolitical landscape, the last two years have unprecedentedly changed everything. A majority of developed nations have appeared helpless in managing the human catastrophe thereby resorting to vaccine and medicine protectionism. To put this on record, over six million people worldwide have lost their lives (COVID Live – Coronavirus Statistics, 2022) during these two years – with the maximum number of lives lost in the United States of America. The global economy has suffered the most since the Great Depression as a fallout of extended total lockdowns that hampered global supply chains. Moreover, an unexpected, unrealised over-dependency of global supply chains on a single country’s economy – China – caught the international community unprepared. Gradually, newer possibilities and threats have emerged through a changing character of the global economy, society, as well as politics and warfare – each of these shifting to the virtual domain.

[powerkit_button size=”lg” style=”info” block=”true” url=”https://admin.thepeninsula.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/TPF-Issue-Brief-Aapada-mein-Avasar-1_compressed-2.pdf” target=”_blank” nofollow=”false”]
Read More
[/powerkit_button]

Feature Image Credits: ABC

May 28, 2022
India’s Indian Ocean and the Imperative for a Strong Indian Navy

“A good navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guarantee of peace!”

The Indian Ocean has been at the centre of world history ever since we know it. Man originated in Africa, probably somewhere in the Olduvai Gorge in present-day Tanzania – where Homo Erectus lived 1.2 million years ago and where the first traces of Homo Sapiens, our more recent ancestors having evolved only about 200,000 years ago. First phonetic languages evolved around 100, 000 years ago. The migration of mankind out of Africa began almost 60000 years ago. But we don’t call the Indian Ocean the African Ocean because the first recorded activity over it began only about 3000 years ago.

Three great early recorded activities of this period come to mind. The first is the Indus Valley Civilization. It was a Bronze Age civilization (3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) in the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent. Along with Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, it was one of three early civilizations of the Old World, and of the three the most widespread.

The Indus civilization’s economy appears to have depended significantly on trade, which was facilitated by major advances in transport technology. It may have been the first civilization to use wheeled transport. These advances may have included bullock carts that are identical to those seen throughout South Asia today, as well as boats. Most of these boats were probably small, flat-bottomed craft, perhaps driven by sail, similar to those one can see on the Indus River today; however, there is secondary evidence of sea-going craft.

Archaeologists have discovered a massive, dredged canal and what they regard as a docking facility at the coastal city of Lothal now in Gujarat. Judging from the dispersal of Indus civilization artifacts, the trade networks, economically, integrated a huge area, including portions of Afghanistan, the coastal regions of Persia, northern and western India, and Mesopotamia. There is some evidence that trade contacts extended to Crete and possibly to Egypt.

There was an extensive maritime trade network operating between the Harappan and Mesopotamian civilizations as early as the middle Harappan Phase, with much commerce being handled by “middlemen merchants from Dilmun” (modern Bahrain and Failaka located in the Persian Gulf). Such long-distance sea trade became feasible with the innovative development of plank-built watercraft, equipped with a single central mast supporting a sail of woven rushes or cloth.

The second great economic activity was Slavery. Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), which refers to it as an established institution. Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations, as it is developed as a system of social stratification. Slavery typically also requires a shortage of labour and a surplus of land to be viable. Bits and pieces from history indicate that Arabs enslaved over 150 million African people and at least 50 million from other parts of the world. Later they also converted Africans into Islam, causing a complete social and financial collapse of the entire African continent apart from wealth attributed to a few regional African kings who became wealthy in the trade and encouraged it.

The third great economic activity was seafaring evidenced by migration. The island of Madagascar, the largest in the Indian Ocean, lies some 250 miles (400 km) from Africa and 4000 miles (6400 km) from Indonesia. New findings, published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, show that the human inhabitants of Madagascar are unique – amazingly, half of their genetic lineages derive from settlers from the region of Borneo, with the other half from East Africa. It is believed that the migration from the Sunda Islands began around 200 BC.

Linguists have established that the origins of the language spoken in Madagascar, Malagasy, suggested Indonesian connections, because its closest relative is the Maanyan language, spoken in southern Borneo. The Gods were also kind and gave the IOR the weather conditions that helped in evolving seaborne trade and intercourse. The sea surface current and prevailing wind structure in and over the Indian Ocean favoured seafarers in their endeavour and sailings in the Indian Ocean from the southern tip of Africa (Cape of Good Hope) during the month of May. After the entry into the Indian Ocean, the seafarers continued to sail in the northerly direction along the coastline of Africa (aided by the strong Somali Current and the East Arabian Current) towards the Arabian Sea.

The physical environmental conditions over the sea and the external prevailing weather helped the seafarers reach places up to the west coast of India. As this sea surface current extend towards the east coast of India, the sailors were greatly assisted by the surface current as they sailed along. During November, when the East Indian Winter wind reverses in its direction and begins to blow from the northeast, the sailors prepare for their return journey. The winds that generate the waves contribute to the reduction in the otherwise required travel time for the sailings between any given two points of departure and arrival. The natural and external forces help the sailors make their journey/expedition more economical and energy-efficient.

Clearly, the region was a hub of all kinds of economic activity. Then came the Petroleum Age. And things changed as never before. The Spice trade, the Silk trade, and the China trade all paled into insignificance. The use of Coal as a ship fuel enlarged distances and volumes of cargo. Oil made even longer journeys and greater volumes possible.

Petroleum is the lifeblood of modern society. It’s a relatively new activity, but its advent has transformed our world as few things have. Petroleum, in one form or another, has been used since ancient times. According to Herodotus more than 4000 years ago, asphalt was used in the construction of the walls and towers of Babylon; there were oil pits near Babylon, and a pitch spring on Zacynthus.

Great quantities of it were found on the banks of the river Issus, one of the tributaries of the Euphrates. Ancient Persian tablets indicate the medicinal and lighting uses of petroleum in the upper levels of their society. By 347 AD, oil was produced from bamboo-drilled wells in China. Early British explorers to Myanmar documented a flourishing oil extraction industry based in Yenangyaung, that in 1795 had hundreds of hand-dug wells under production.

Oil is now the single most important driver of world economics, politics and technology. The rise in importance was due to the invention of the internal combustion engine, the rise in commercial aviation, and the importance of petroleum to industrial organic chemistry, particularly the synthesis of plastics, fertilizers, solvents, adhesives and pesticides. Today, oil contributes 3% of the global GDP.

In 1847, the process to distill kerosene from petroleum was invented by James Young. He noticed natural petroleum seepage in the Riddings colliery at Alfreton, Derbyshire from which he distilled a light thin oil suitable for use as lamp oil, at the same time obtaining a thicker oil suitable for lubricating machinery. In 1848 Young set up a small business refining the crude oil.

Today the world’s biggest stand-alone refinery is the Reliance refinery at Jamnagar with a refining capacity of about 1.5 million barrels a day. The Essar refinery at Jamnagar refines a further 0.5 million barrels a day. Together they make Jamnagar one of the world’s great refining centers. India’s number one export item is Petroleum products, mostly Petrol and Diesel. India now exports the equivalent of about 615,000 barrels a day. In 2020, petroleum exports accounted for $25.3 billion of our total exports of $291.8 billion in the same year.

India imported $77 billion worth of oil in the year 2020-21 and more than half of this comes from countries in the IOR. Iraq’s share is 22.4%, Saudi Arabia’s share is 18.8%, UAE’s share is 10.8%, and Kuwait’s 5%. The IOR is India’s lifeline and lifeblood. If the line is blocked we will suffer hugely, if the blood gets anaemic we will suffer hugely. India just cannot afford anything to go wrong here.

The sea lanes in the Indian Ocean are considered among the most strategically important in the world—according to the Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, more than 80 percent of the world’s seaborne trade in oil transits through the Indian Ocean choke points, with 40 percent passing through the Strait of Hormuz, 35 percent through the Strait of Malacca and 8 percent through the Bab el-Mandab Strait.

But it’s not just about sea-lanes and trade. More than half the world’s armed conflicts are presently located in the Indian Ocean region, while the waters are also home to continually evolving strategic developments including the competing rises of China and India, the potential nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan, the US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, Islamist terrorism, incidents of piracy in and around the Horn of Africa, and management of diminishing fishery resources.

As a result of all this, almost all the world’s major powers have deployed substantial military forces in the Indian Ocean region. For example, in addition to maintaining expeditionary forces in Iraq, the US 5th Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain, and uses the island of Diego Garcia as a major air-naval base and logistics hub for its Indian Ocean operations. In addition, the United States has deployed several major naval task forces there, including Combined Task Force 152 (currently operated by the Kuwait Navy), which is focusing on illicit non-state actors in the Arabian Gulf, and Combined Task Force 150 (currently commanded by the Pakistan Navy), which is tasked with Maritime Security Operations (MSO) outside the Arabian Gulf with an Area of Responsibility (AOR) covering the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Oman. France, meanwhile, is perhaps the last of the major European powers to maintain a significant presence in the north and southwest Indian Ocean quadrants, with naval bases in Djibouti, Reunion, and Abu Dhabi.

And, of course, China and India both also have genuine aspirations of developing blue water naval capabilities through the development and acquisition of aircraft carriers and an aggressive modernization and expansion programme.

China’s aggressive soft power diplomacy has widely been seen as arguably the most important element in shaping the Indian Ocean strategic environment, transforming the entire region’s dynamics. By providing large loans on generous repayment terms, investing in major infrastructure projects such as the building of roads, dams, ports, power plants, and railways, and offering military assistance and political support in the UN Security Council through its veto powers, China has secured considerable goodwill and influence among countries in the Indian Ocean region.

And the list of countries that are coming within China’s strategic orbit appears to be growing. Sri Lanka, which has seen China replace Japan as its largest donor, is a case in point—China was no doubt instrumental in ensuring that Sri Lanka was granted dialogue partner status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

To the west, Kenya offers another example of how China has been bolstering its influence in the Indian Ocean. The shift was underscored in a leaked US diplomatic cable from February 2010 that was recently published by WikiLeaks. In it, US Ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger highlighted the decline of US influence in East Africa’s economic hub, saying: ‘We expect China’s engagement in Kenya to continue growing given Kenya’s strategic location…If oil or gas is found in Kenya, this engagement will likely grow even faster. Kenya’s leadership may be tempted to move close to China in an effort to shield itself from Western, and principally US pressure to reform.’

The rise of China as the world’s greatest exporter, its largest manufacturing nation and its great economic appetite poses a new set of challenges. At a meeting of South-East Asian nations in 2010, China’s foreign minister Yang Jiechi, facing a barrage of complaints about his country’s behaviour in the region, blurted out the sort of thing polite leaders usually prefer to leave unsaid. “China is a big country,” he pointed out, “and other countries are small countries and that is just a fact.”

Indeed it is, and China is big not merely in terms of territory and population, but also in military might. Its Communist Party is presiding over the world’s largest military build-up. And that is just a fact, too—one that the rest of the world has to come to terms with.

China’s defence budget has almost certainly experienced double-digit growth for two decades. According to SIPRI, a research institute, annual defence spending rose from over $30 billion in 2000, $120 billion in 2010 to almost $229.4 billion in 2021. SIPRI usually adds about 50% to the official figure that China gives for its defence spending, because even basic military items such as research and development are kept off budget. Including those items would imply total military spending in 2021, based on the latest announcement from Beijing, would be around $287.8 billion.

This is not a sum India can match and the last thing we need to get caught in is a numbers game. A one-party dictatorship will always be able to outspend us, even if our GDPs get closer.

But history tells us again and again that victory is not assured by superiority in numbers and even technology. If that were to be so, Alexander should have been defeated at Gaugamela, Babur at Panipat, Wellington at Waterloo, Russia at Leningrad, Britain in the Falklands, and above all Vietnam who defeated three of the world’s leading powers – France, the USA and China – in succession. I don’t have to tell you that victory is more a result of strategy and tactics. Numbers do matter, but numbers are not all. Technology does matter, but technology alone cannot assure you of victory. It’s always mind over matter. You know these things better than most of us. You also know what to do. As the old saying goes: “When the going gets tough, the tough get going!”

That said, the threat from China should not be exaggerated. There are three limiting factors. First, unlike the former Soviet Union, China has a vital national interest in the stability of the global economic system. Its military leaders constantly stress that the development of what is still only a middle-income country with a lot of very poor people takes precedence over military ambition. The increase in its military spending reflects the growth of the economy, rather than an expanding share of national income. For many years China has steadily spent the same proportion of GDP on defence (a bit over 1.7%, whereas America spend about 3.7% in the year 2020-21).

The real test of China’s willingness to keep military spending constant will come when China’s headlong economic growth starts to slow further. But in the past form, China’s leaders will continue to worry more about internal threats to their control than external ones. In 2020, the Chinese spending on internal security was $212 billion. With a rapidly ageing population, it is also a good bet that meeting the demand for better health care will become a higher priority than maintaining military spending.

Like all the other great powers, China faces a choice of guns and butter or more appropriately walking sticks. But till then it is: Nervi belli pecunia infinita or unlimited money is the muscle of war.

India on the other hand will keep growing long after China has stopped growing. Its youthful population and present growth trends indicate the accumulation of the world’s largest middle class in India. India’s growth is projected to continue well past 2050. In fact so big will this become, that India during this period will increasingly power world economic growth, and not China. In 2050, India is projected to have a population of 1.64 billion and of these 1.3 billion will belong to the middle and upper classes. The lower classes will be constant at around 300 million, as it is now.

India already has the world’s third-largest GDP. Many economists prophesize that in 2050 it will be India that will be the world’s biggest economy, not China. In per capita terms, we might still be poorer, but in over GDP terms, we will be bigger.

According to a study by IHS Markit, a subsidiary of S&P Global, India will be the world’s third-largest economy by 2030. Indian GDP in 2030 is projected to be $8.4 trillion. China, in second place, will have a GDP of $ 33.7 trillion and the US $ 30.4 trillion. As we say in India, aap key muh mein ghee aur shakhar. Both incidentally now deemed bad for health.

Now comes the dilemma for India. Robert Kaplan writes: “As the United States and China become great power rivals, the direction in which India tilts could determine the course of geo-politics in Eurasia in the 21st century. India, in other words, looms at the ultimate pivot state.” At another time Mahan noted that India, located in the centre of the Indian Ocean littoral, is critical for the seaward penetration of both the Middle-east and China.

Now if one were an Indian planner, he or she would be looking at the China Pakistan axis with askance. India has had conflicts and still perceives threats from both, jointly and severally. The Tibetan desert, once intended to be India’s buffer against the north now has become China’s buffer against India. The planner will not be looking at all if he or she were not looking at the Indian Ocean as a theatre. After all, it is also China’s lifeline and its lifeblood flows here.

Now if one were a Chinese planner, he or she would be looking with concern over India’s growth and increasing ability to project power in the IOR. The planner will also note what experts are saying about India’s growth trajectory. That it will be growing long after China gets walking sticks. That it is the ultimate pivot state in the grand struggle for primacy between the West led by the USA and Japan, and China.

What will this planner be thinking particularly given the huge economic and military asymmetry between China and India now? Tacitus tells it most pithily. That peace can come through strength or Si vis pacem para bellum. While China has ratcheted up its show of assertiveness in recent years, India has been quietly preparing for a parity to prevent war. Often parity does not have to be equality in numbers. The fear of pain disproportionate to the possible gains, and the ability of the smaller in numbers side to do so in itself confer parity.

There is a certain equilibrium in Sino-Indian affairs that make recourse to force extremely improbable. Both modern states are inheritors of age-old traditions and the wisdom of the ages. Both now read their semaphores well and know how much of the sword must be unsheathed to send a message. This ability will ensure the swords remain recessed and for the plowshares to be out at work.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not say something about the centrality of the Indian Navy to our future. Nothing says it better than what Theodore Roosevelt said a century ago: “A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guarantee of peace!”

Featured Image Credit: Indian Navy

April 26, 2022
China’s New Land Border Law

On October 23, 2021, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the highest legislative body of the People’s Republic of China passed the Land Boundary Law along adding to its new Maritime Law as well as China Coast Guard Law passed earlier in 2021, which shows China’s intention in pursuing an aggressive policy on its territorial claims. The land boundary law came into effect on January 1, 2022. The law is likely motivated partially by the possible implications over developments in Afghanistan that could potentially have a destabilising effect in Xinjiang, growing violence in Myanmar-China border but more by the India-China geopolitical tussle. The timing of the law is clearly related to the escalating border tensions with India and in the South China Sea. India and China have been engaged in border stand-off since May 2020.^[i] Closer scrutiny of this law, consisting of 62 articles in seven chapters, indicates that China is stepping up its aggressive tone when it comes to border disputes, demonstrated by its rhetoric that China will “resolutely defend territorial sovereignty and land border security.”^[ii] It states that the main aim of the law is to “standardise and strengthen the security and stability of land borders” and “safeguard national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.”^[iii] In other words, Beijing will take all measures to safeguard its interests within its specified borders by any means be it military or economic. The law effectively uses a civil-military fusion strategy emphasising improvement of public services and infrastructure along the borders as also incorporating the local population in territorial defence. The law prohibits any party from engaging in any border activities which would “endanger national security or affect China’s friendly relations with neighbouring countries”.^[iv]

Zhang Yesui, a spokesperson for the National People’s Congress stated that the law became necessary to safeguard China’s interests at the border and to regulate national borders, border defence management, and international cooperation in border affairs.^[v] This law has serious implications for all 14 countries sharing borders with China. By incorporating the sovereignty claim over disputed territories China has effectively legitimised the use of force along its 22,4577 kilometres of borders as of January 01, 2022. Even though China has guaranteed that these laws aren’t meant to dislodge any international laws and treaties, it is evident that China is adopting aggressive policies to attain its goals.

The new law has serious implications for India. Firstly, since the 1962 war, the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is the de facto border between India and China, and both countries have different interpretations of the LAC over at least 13 different locations.^[vi] Article 4 of the law states China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as sacred and inviolable and applies this dictum to the disputed territories.[vii] Thus this law makes the earlier agreement of Peace and Tranquillity along the disputed Sino-India border almost irrelevant. Secondly, the law forbids any form of construction of facilities “near” China’s border. This is elucidated in Article 10 deals with border defence construction including its river waters management under the term flood control. These issues are deliberately kept vague, and they could interfere with any form of construction on the border. This could again become contentious as both the countries are engaged in an “infrastructure arms race” on their sides of the border. Thirdly, the new law has made a special mention of the role of civilians concerning the development of villages and towns in the borderlands. The law reflects China’s intention to increase civilian settlements bordering India, Nepal, and Bhutan.^[viii] This move goes in tandem with China’s agenda of “developing the border regions, enriching the local people” introduced in 1999 and is seen as a strategy to legitimise its territorial claims.^[ix]

The law has a problematic stance with international law, as Beijing is circumventing these by enacting domestic laws to give it legal backing for its unlawful actions. It shows that international law is ineffective against powerful states. The new law goes against the ethos of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties of 1969 (VCLT), which is an instrument that regulates the treaties between states. It establishes internationally recognised norms of behaviour by states in crisis or conflict situations. It is important to note that under the general principles of international law, unilateral declarations do tend to have a legal character of their own as explained under the Law of Treaties. It is imperative that such unilateral declarations must not affect the rights of other states and must go through two different stages to be considered legally acceptable. Firstly, there should be a unilateral statement by an actor and secondly, the said statement must either be accepted by the party/parties concerned or must go unchallenged. In this case, several parties have issues with China’s new land border law.^[x]

As Beijing’s ‘Land border law’ came into effect on January 1^st, the PLA released a propaganda video showing the Chinese flag and soldiers in the Galwan valley, with a banner reading ‘never yield an inch of land’. Earlier China released a statement renaming 15 places in India’s border state of Arunachal Pradesh. Chinese maps have consistently shown the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh, Barahoti plains in Uttarakhand, and areas up to the 1959 claim line in Ladakh as its territory.[xi] China will use the new law to claim these areas as its sovereign territory thus deeming it non-negotiable. It is playing realpolitik to increase pressure on India by escalating the friction points.[xii] The current situation at the India-China border has the potential to spiral out of control, as both sides are deploying heavy armaments and forces on the border, and in essence, the new law makes the border dispute a ticking time-bomb with far-reaching consequences for the world.

Reference

^[i] Philip, Snehesh Alex. “Chinese Troops Challenge India at Multiple Locations in Eastern Ladakh, Standoff Continues.” ThePrint, 24 May 2020, https://theprint.in/defence/chinese-troops-challenge-india-at-multiple-locations-in-eastern-ladakh-standoff-continues/428304/.

^[ii] Wei, Changhao. “NPCSC Adopts New Laws on Family Education and Land Borders, Amends Audit Law & Authorizes New Regulatory and Military Reforms.” NPC Observer, 18 Nov. 2021,https://npcobserver.com/2021/10/26/npcsc-adopts-new-laws-on-family-education-and-land-borders-amends-audit-law-authorizes-new-regulatory-and-military-reforms/.

^[iii] Panag , Lt Gen H S. “China’s Land Border Law Is More Sinister than It Lets on. India Needs a Course Correction.” ThePrint, 11 Nov. 2021, https://theprint.in/opinion/chinas-land-border-law-is-more-sinister-than-it-lets-on-india-needs-a-course-correction/764463/.

^[iv] 13th National People’s Congress. “Land Border Law of the People’s Republic of China.” The National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China, 23 Oct. 2021, http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/202110/5a3d27747cc542f8bcde9030a83218e2.shtml.

^[v] Huang, Kristin. “What ‘New Challenges’ Does China’s New Border Defence Law Aim to Tackle?” South China Morning Post, 31 Oct. 2021, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3154139/what-new-challenges-does-chinas-new-border-defence-law-aim.

^[vi] Fravel, Taylor M. “Analysis | Why Are China and India Skirmishing at Their Border? Here’s 4 Things to Know.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 2 June 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/02/why-are-china-india-skirmishing-their-border-heres-4-things-know/.

[vii] Kalita, Jayanta. “China’s New Border Law Could Further Complicate Boundary Disputes”, The Irrawaddy, November 22, 2021. https://www.irrawaddy.com/opinion/guest-column/chinas-new-border-law-could-further-complicate-boundary-disputes.html

^[viii] Pasricha, Anjana. “Chinese Border Villages in Disputed Territory Put India on Alert.” VOA, 2 Apr. 2021, https://www.voanews.com/a/east-asia-pacific_voa-news-china_chinese-border-villages-disputed-territory-put-india-alert/6204062.html.

^[ix] Jianqiang, Yang. “Deputy Director of the National Ethnic Affairs Commission, Answered Questions from the Chinese Government Website on the ‘Eleventh Five-Year Plan’ for the Action to Promote Frontiers and Enrich the People.” Central Government Portal, 18 June 2007, http://www.gov.cn/zwhd/2007-06/18/content_652065.htm.

^[x] Pandey, Utkarsh. “The India-China Border Question: An Analysis of International Law and State Practices.” ORF, 23 Dec. 2020, https://www.orfonline.org/research/the-india-china-border-question/.

[xi] “China’s new border laws implemented under Galwan video: All you need to know about the legislation and why is it a concern for India.” Firstpost, January 03, 2022. https://www.firstpost.com/india/chinas-new-border-laws-implemented-amid-galwan-video-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-legislation-and-why-is-it-a-concern-for-india-10253481.html

[xii] Siddiqui, Huma. “China continues its belligerence, renamed 15 places in Arunachal: India should expect more such actions, say experts”, Financial Express, December 31, 2021. https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/china-continues-its-belligerence-renamed-15-places-in-arunachal-india-should-expect-more-such-actions-say-experts/2395218/

Feature Image Credi: Global Times

Map Credit: jagranjosh.com

January 9, 2022
Democracy in Retreat: India’s declining Parliamentary Practices and Debates

Abstract

The Indian Political climate is always one of enormous diversity and vibrancy. In recent times it has tended to become politically charged with extreme ideologies. In 2014, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power with a landmark majority, which it sustained in the following 2019 general elections. In the time that the Bhartiya Janata Party has been in power, there have been popular protests and reports that give rise to apprehensions that the democratic practices of India are in serious decline. This paper analyses whether the government led by the BJP is functioning more as a majoritarian entity that disregards democratic norms. In doing so it aims to answer the primary question of whether there is erosion in adherence to constitutional mechanisms in policymaking and carries out a review of the educational realm with regards to allegations of bypassing democratic and constitutional norms. The research is based on primary and secondary sources and mixed methodology: collation and analysis are based on already existing data with a mixed focus on quantitative and qualitative aspects. For the former, numerical data has been gathered from official government sites while the latter is drawn from pre-existing literature, published research papers and journal articles. The paper concludes by affirming the thesis and supports the argument that anti-democratic trends are indeed present in the Indian Governmental apparatus.

Introduction

Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power gaining a spectacular single-party majority in the general elections of 2014, the first in nearly three decades (Jaffrelot, 2019). This success was replicated in the Lok Sabha elections of 2019 which marked two full consecutive terms of the BJP regime for the first time. This is also the first time in nearly three decades that a single-party majority government is in power since 2014.

India is, for long, seen as the World’s largest Democracy. Although this is a well-known tag bestowed to India, with the vast diversity of thought, ideologies and practices adopted by different governments there have been times in Indian political history where the actions of governments do not align with the overarching democratic values at large.

A relevant instance of the same is the 1975 declaration of Emergency under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Dubbed as one of the darkest times of Indian democracy, this period witnessed civil liberties being harrowingly curbed and journalistic freedom and opposition faced a draconian crackdown. Gyan Prakash, a historian and a scholar, reflects upon this event under Congress rule in a way that has significance when analysing the political happenings of contemporary times. The essence of his work is that the Emergency was brought on by a larger reason than an individual’s quest for power (Prakash, 2019); he asserts that Indian democracy’s strained relationship with popular politics is to blame. There is then merit in assessing how Indian Democracy may be vulnerable to subversion and the extent to which structural issues in the democratic framework are being exploited currently by the BJP, the party in power.

The decline in adhering to Democratic norms under the BJP Rule

In the recent past, three international reports have suggested that the democratic nature of the Indian nation-state is on a decline.
Freedom House, a non-profit think tank located in the United States, downgraded India from a free democracy to a “somewhat free democracy” in its annual report on worldwide political rights and liberties. The V-Dem Institute, based in Sweden, in its most recent study on democracy, claimed that India has devolved into an “electoral autocracy. Additionally, India fell two spots to 53rd place in The Economist Intelligence Unit’s recent Democracy Index (Biswas, 2021).

These reports, however, are of international origins and subject to an ethnocentric view of what constitutes democracy and democratic practices. Although they are worth mentioning, their evaluation cannot be fully accepted at face value.

The sentiments of this report however do find echoes on the national front. A recent event wherein the ruling government was criticised internally for showcasing a lack of democratic conduct was with regards to the new National Education Policy.

National Education Policy 2020 was unveiled on July 30, 2020. In 2017, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) formed a committee chaired by Dr K. Kasturirangan (former chairman of ISRO) to review the existing education policy and submit a new proposal (Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, 2020). The committee circulated a draught NEP for public comment in the year 2019, the edited version of the same is expected to replace the decades-old 1986 Policy on Education.

Some key features of the NEP 2020 include restructuring and reform of school curriculum, changes to curriculum content, the aim to achieve foundational literacy, and ensure that the children who enrol in schools are retained in the system and finish their schooling rather than dropping out and more (Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, 2020) .

The reforms and restructuring that the NEP suggests have the potential to elevate India to the status of a desirable educational hub. It offers a welcome and refreshing change from the rote learning patterns and administrative limitations that have so far dominated the educational realm.

The policy thus cannot be denied credit where it is due. There are, however, some strong critiques levelled against the NEP by scholars, educators, opposition and students alike. The nature of these critiques signals the idea that some anti-democratic elements underlie the policy and its construction.

The first of these criticisms is against the centralisation of education while the second criticism concerns itself with the lack of commitment to a secular curriculum. The Constitution had mandated education as a state subject, which was later amended to make it a concurrent subject thus bringing in a stronger role for the Union government. This amendment is seen as a blow to the federal structure of the country. The NEP is fully dominated by the Centre thus making the states mere bystanders.

Opposition ruled states have questioned the need for the NEP to take effect during the Covid 19 pandemic and levelled a range of accusations. The Delhi Education Minister stated that the NEP lacks mention of the government-run school system and that he believes the policy will pave the way to privatize education, which is a concern as it will create a situation where not all can have access to high-quality education. The Chhattisgarh chief minister commented along similar lines alleging that the fine print of the NEP displayed no space for state concerns nor any tangible improvement in educational quality. In Rajasthan, a three-member committee was formed to analyse and evaluate the NEP, working off their findings Rajasthan’s Education minister expressed concern regarding the funding of the policy and raised the question of lack of clarity regarding the 6% GDP being attributed to the educational realm (Sharma, 2020).

The contention regarding NEP also stems from the fact that Education is on the concurrent list. The Sarkaria commission, set up in 1983 by the central government stated that to pass a law on a concurrent list subject, the union government should ensure that the states have been adequately brought into the folds of discussion and weight is given to their opinions during consultation. The NEP 2020 is, however, not a law and is a policy, therefore it does not fully fit into the ambit of this suggestion. It is perhaps the content of the policy that has created furore from the states regarding not being adequately consulted (Menon, 2020).

The educational sector is one where the states have had tremendous sway and many practicalities fall within the state jurisdiction, additionally, 75-80 per cent of the expenditure is accounted for by the state (Jha, 2019).

The NEP in contrast to previous national policies was approved by the Union Cabinet and did not go through the parliament. Thus, the level to which states accept it and subsequently the larger question of how well Indian federalism is operating comes under scrutiny.

Prior to the 42^nd Amendment in 1976- Education remained on the state list. Through an amendment made in 1976 to Schedule VII of the constitution, education was shifted to the concurrent list upon the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee. This move was regarded as an avenue to empower the centre with centralised policymaking advantages.

Some experts find parallels between the dark Era of Democracy, the period of emergency under Indira Gandhi, and the current government under the BJP. The 1976 provisions under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi saw the transfer of five state subjects to the concurrent list, including the education sector. This has been identified as the foundation on which NEP stands and thereby has been interpreted as having a basis that does not align with constitutional democratic values (Raveendhren, 2020).

The relationship between the States and the Union government concerning all educational policies from the eve of independence until the NEP 2020 has undergone noticeable changes. NEP 1968 gave a primary role to the state while the union government committed to assisting states (Menon, 2020). On the other hand NEP 1986, in the aftermath of the Emergency and on the recommendation of the Sarkaria committee, put forth a vision for partnership between the union and the states. NEP 2020, mentions neither of these, assumed to have taken the approval of the states for granted.

The second major critique of NEP that implies an anti-democratic approach brings to the forefront the proposed curricula for moral values. The Indian Nation state adopted a form of secularism that rested on the strategy of non-interference. This form of secularism espouses that the state and religion are not completely and wholly separated. Instead, it proposes an equidistance of the state from all religions and accordance of equal respect to them without favour or priority being given to one over another.

One of the ways in which the ideal of Indian secularism is affirmed is through the education system. According to article 28 of the Indian constitution Governmental educational institutes in India do not permit the dissemination of religious instruction, however, they do not prohibit religious text or books from being used in the classroom (Gowda C. , 2019). This is most often noticeable in the literature curriculum where devotional poetry is present. Tulsidas, Kabir to Malik Muhammad Jayasi to even John Henry Newman are all often included and studied. The inclusion of various religious poets and works from a variety of religions reflects the attempt made by the Indian educational system to embody the constitutional ideal of secularism. It is of course debatable and subject to change the extent to which each school adheres to upholding this secular and diverse teaching, although there is a commitment to the ideal, nonetheless.

The second critique against NEP can be understood against this background. In a section termed inspiring lessons from the literature and people of India, stories of Panchatantra, Jataka, Hitopadesha etc are mentioned. Critics assert that these stories come from an unequivocal Hindu background and a secular curriculum should ideally have included Aesop’s Stories and Arabian Nights as an equal part of Indian folklore.

They emphasize the importance of this measure to ensure that all students, no matter their faith feel represented and included in the classroom and the moral imagination of pupils are shaped to respect diversity and tolerance.

Education: Policy Changes in Academia

The NEP controversy hints at some concerns in the larger system of education. The BJP government which has been in power since 2014 has enacted several policies, laws and acts, and much like all governments has garnered appreciation and criticism alike. It is the content of the critical claims that warrant discussion, for much of the disapproval claims that democratic and secular ideals of the Indian nation are being cast aside.

A recent contention arose due to the decision of CBSE to reduce the curriculum to alleviate student pressure on the line forum. The Central Board of Secondary Education announced a 30 per cent reduction in the curriculum. One of the concerns is that under this provision, chapters on federalism, secularism, democratic rights need not be taught in class 12 (Sanghera, 2020). Class 10 political science syllabus also saw the removal of chapters such as “popular struggles and movements” and “democracy and diversity”.

These omissions have invited considerable disapproval from scholars and experts across fields. The former director of the National Council of Education Research and Training commented that the cuts have rendered some remaining topics “incomprehensible”. Educators on the ground state discontent with the removal of topics for they believe it to promote self-reflection and criticality (Sanghera, 2020).

The rewriting of textbooks has persisted at state levels before the 2014 elections and is not a novel phenomenon. In BJP ruled states it can be noted that a counter idea of history is underway in educational texts. In this exercise, some ideologically conservative Hindu organisations have been accorded more space and appreciation for their contributions, however, the educational attention accorded to ideals of secularism and so forth has been minimized.

In Gujrat for instance as far back as 2000, there was a move that made it compulsory for teachers to attend Sanskrit training camps in preparation for when the subject would be made mandatory.

The focus on the educational sphere and the changes that occur in it are of significance because the policies of the state in such realms are not divorced from the Indian climate and foster a culture of tolerance at large.

In recent times, experts have raised some concerns regarding the qualifications of those in high governmental positions. The Prime Minister of the country stated his belief regarding the roots of cosmetic surgery and reproductive advancements of modern times as having already existed in ancient India (Rahman, 2014). Drawing upon the Sanskrit epic of Mahabharata, he spoke of genetic science as an explanation for the birth of Karna and cosmetic surgery as an explanation for the physique of Ganesha- an elephant-headed Hindu God. The Minister of Science and technology in 2018 stated at the 105th edition of the Indian Science Congress, that Stephen Hawking went on record to assert that the Vedas, a body of Indian scripture, had a theory that superseded Einstein’s famous E=mc2 theory of relativity (Koshy, 2018).

In contrast, the first National Democratic Alliance headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee demonstrated an affinity for learning and scientific rigour. M.M. Joshi, the Human Resource Development Minister for instance had completed a doctorate in physics. George Fernandes, Yashwant Sinha and Lk Advani are among some other examples of cabinet ministers who were profoundly involved with academia on public policy and history. Some members of the government such as Jaswant Singh and Arun Shourie also authored some works (Guha, 2019).

Since it is noticeable that some policies of the ruling government have garnered critique, perhaps the logical next step is to evaluate the process of policymaking as it has shaped up in the last 7 years.

Institutional norms and parliamentary procedures in India, especially for legislation making are designed to ensure space for debate, discussion and dissent. This operates as a system where all decisions are subjected to scrutiny by the people’s representatives. To that end, adherence to parliamentary procedure is an indicator of a government’s treatment of and respect for democracy. To carry out any analysis of this sort in an objective manner, one must first ascertain what exactly constitutes an ideal parliamentary procedure.

Parliamentary Procedure on Legislation Making: How Does A Bill Become An Act?

Acts usually start as bills which simply put, is the draft of a legislative proposal. This bill may be introduced by public members or private members and requires passing in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha as well as the president’s assent to become a law.

There are (Lok Sabha Secretariate, 2014) three stages through which a bill is passed in the parliament: these are known as the first, second and third reading respectively.

For the First Reading, the speaker puts forth the request for leave of the house, which if granted is used to introduce the bill. Following this stage is the second reading which entails general discussion. It is during this stage that the House may choose to refer the bill to a parliamentary committee for further input or even circulate it to gauge public opinion. During the second reading, parliamentary procedure states that a clause-by-clause reading must proceed, and it is during this time amendments are moved. The second reading concludes with the adoption of ‘Enacting Formula’ and ‘Long Title of the Bill’. The next stage is the third and the last reading. At this Juncture, debates for and against the bill take place. For an ordinary bill, only a simple majority of the members present, and voting suffices, however for a constitutional amendment bill, in keeping with article 368 of the constitution, a majority of the house’s total members and at least 2/3rd members present, and voting is deemed necessary. Once this process is complete, the bill is sent to the other house of the parliament and goes through the same stages after which is referred to the president for his assent.

Analysis of Parliamentary Procedure under the BJP Government

With the great furore over the recent Monsoon session of the parliament, opposition leaders and journalists have expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s treatment of parliamentary procedure.

The monsoon session of the parliament is one example where a couple of mechanisms that have increasingly been used as of late signify a subversion of the democratic process (Brien, Autocratic Government doesn’t want Parliament to Function, 2021).

The first of these is the misuse of Article 123 also known as the Ordinance Route. Article 123 of the constitution permits the president to enact a temporary law in the event of urgent and unavoidable circumstances.

During the first 30 years of our parliamentary democracy, for every 10 bills in the parliament, one ordinance was issued. In the following 30 years, this number went to 2 ordinances per every 10 bills. In the BJP Government’s first term from 2014-2019, this number went up to 3.5 ordinances per every ten bills. For perspective, while 61 ordinances were issued under the UPA government spanning ten years the BJP-led NDA government issued 76 ordinances in a time frame of 7 years spanning from May 2014 to April 2021. It is also useful to note that ten of these ordinances were issued right before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections (Gowda M. R., 2021).

As many as 11 ordinances have been passed since March 24th, 2020, which is when the lockdown was imposed. Five of these relate to covid 19, two to the health sector, every other ordinance such as the Banking Regulation Amendment and the Agriculture bills do not have anything to do with the coronavirus pandemic (Brien, The ordinance raj of the Bharatiya Janata Party, 2020).

Another practice that raises serious concern relates to the issue of repromulagation. However, it is important to note that the recourse to ordinance route and repromulgation is not an exclusively BJP action. Before the year 1986, no central government was known to have issued a repromulagation and this method came into view during the Narasimha Rao government in 1992. This was the landmark time frame that one can trace the trends of repromulagation as originating from.

As far as the ordinances are concerned, they are an emergency provision, however, many governments have used them with an almost immoral frequency (Dam, 2015). According to PRS Legislative Research’s reports, average ordinances issued could be placed at around 7.1 per year in the 1950’s while in the 1990s there was a marked increase to an average of 19.6 per year. The 2010s witnessed a dip in the trend with an average number of ordinances being 7.9 per year (Madhvan, The Ordinance route is bad, repromulgation is worse, 2021). This number has unfortunately risen again in recent years with an average number of ordinances numbering 16 in 2019 and 15 in 2020.

The issue of repromulagation of ordinances was brought up in the Supreme Court and was deemed as an unconstitutional practice in January of 2017 by a bench of seven judges. This judgement decisively stated that repromulagation of ordinances was an unconstitutional practice that sought to subvert the constitutionally prescribed legislative processes (Madhvan, The Ordinance route is bad, repromulgation is worse, 2021).

States have also used ordinances to pass legislation. A non-BJP ruled state Kerala, for example, published 81 regulations in 2020, whereas Karnataka issued 24, and Maharashtra issued 21. Kerala has also re-promulgated ordinances: between January 2020 and February 2021, one ordinance to establish a Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation, and Technology was repromulgated five times (Madhvan, The Ordinance route is bad, repromulgation is worse, 2021).

Although previous administrations and other states have utilized ordinances to undermine the constitutional process, the problem is decidedly amplified under the present rule with regards to the number of ordinances produced per given period.

This sort of rise in ordinances being issued points to a trend of avoiding in-depth critical evaluation and discussion on proposals by rushing them into becoming acts.

One of the most controversial ordinances in the recent past pertains to the three farm laws which now stand repealed after year-long demonstrations and protests at the Singhur border by farmers. The reason for not introducing these proposals in the parliament and instead enacting ordinances is unclear for there seems to be no urgent link to the covid 19 pandemic. Additionally, the farm bills not being subjected to any discussions nor being referred to parliamentary committees for any further report making has led to removing any possibility for amendment. These laws provide a useful avenue to assess why the bill was not passed through a proper parliamentary process and instead rushed through the ordinance. This assumes critical relevance since agriculture is essentially a state subject, and the States were not consulted on the farm laws.

The ordinance culture has also extended to BJP run states, for instance, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat adopted ordinances weakening labour laws without consulting workers’ unions or civil rights organisations during the lockdown. Moreover, this was followed up on 15th March 2020, when colonial-era legislation was enacted as an Ordinance. This was the Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property ordinance which would heavily fine any damage to property, public or private during a protest.

Under the BJP-led NDA rule, there has been slim or no involvement of parliamentary committees. Parliamentary committees are key in assessing a proposal with necessary scrutiny and expertise. These committees provide a place for members to interact with subject experts and government officials while they are studying a bill (Kanwar, 2019).

60 per cent of proposals were referred to Standing or Select Committees during the United Progressive Alliance’s first term. During the UPA-II administration, this rose to 71 per cent. Modi’s first term from 2014-19 had a 27 per cent reference rate, while his second term so far has only a 12 per cent rate (Gowda M. R., 2021). Not only is there a blatant and marked disregard for referring bills to parliamentary committees, but the administration has also actively worked to hinder committee work. A meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology on July 28, 2021, had to be cancelled owing to a lack of quorum when 15 BJP members refused to sign the attendance register. It is speculated this was to avoid the discussion on the Pegasus scandal.

Monsoon Session of Parliament 2021 and other Statistics

Adherence to the parliamentary procedure can be gauged through a wide avenue of categories including but not limited to hours lost to disruptions, adjournments, the productivity of each session, time spent on deliberation and so on.

A record number of 12 bills were passed by the parliament in the first 10 days of the monsoon session. All these bills were passed by a voice vote which is widely viewed as a largely inaccurate mechanism to assess supporters of a particular proposal. None of these 12 bills nor the overall 14 bills was referred to standing committees for in-depth analysis. According to TMC leader (Brien, 2021), Derek O’Brien in the monsoon session bills were rushed through and 12 bills were passed at an average time of under 7 minutes per bill (Brien, Indian Express, 2021). In the same vein, BSP MP Danish Ali commented that the Essential Defence Services Bill was passed in less than 10 minutes (Nair, 2021).

Since 2014, the 2021 monsoon session of the parliament ranks the third highest in terms of time lost to forced adjournments and interruptions. In this session, the number of sitting hours was, unfortunately, lower than the number of hours lost to disruptions which came to be around 74.46 hours.

The lack of debates on bills has become a major controversy. With a per bill time of fewer than 10 minutes, 14 new bills were passed in the monsoon session, a worrying number that indicates no involvement of the parliamentary committees, and no sustained debates, a feature essential to provide checks to freehand power (Radhakrishnan, 2021).

The time accorded to bill discussion is another avenue to assess the functioning of parliamentary procedure. In 2019, the average time spent on bill discussion stood at 213 minutes. At present, it stands at 85 minutes. Furthermore, in the 16^thand 17^th Lok Sabha, which subsumes the two terms of the Bhartiya Janata Party, 27% and 12% bills respectively were referred to parliamentary committees. In contrast during the 14th Lok Sabha (17 May 2004 – 18 May 2009) 60% of the bills were referred to parliamentary committees, and 71% of the bills were referred to the parliamentary committees for discussion in the 15^th Lok Sabha (2009-14).

With regards to the passing of bills, around 18% of the bills were introduced and passed in the same session in the 15^thLok Sabha. In the 16^th Lok Sabha (2014-2019) this number jumped to 33 per cent while in the 17^th one it increased drastically to 70%, indicating the lack of debate.

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to evaluate primarily the basic question of whether constitutional methods have been followed in policymaking under the Bhartiya Janata Party’s tenure. In doing so it has analysed the educational realm beginning from the recent criticisms against the NEP. These critiques highlighted that a centralised decision-making structure that is detrimental to federal values is visible alongside a lack of focus on secular education. Additionally, statements from top officials, policies of CBSE, and those responsible for the change in curriculum hint that policies of late seem to have an aim of fostering educational sensibilities that further an ideological agenda of the ruling party. The paper also attempted to broaden its lens to assess the larger process of policymaking and legislation. Herein it was determined that there is an incongruity between the parliamentary procedures of recent years and the constitutional norms. This includes the statistics that highlight a growing recourse to ordinances, the curtailing of question hour, minimal involvement of parliamentary committees and the excessive use of voice vote. The state of affairs in India at the moment stands to suggest that parliamentary procedures do not adhere to constitutional norms, and thus there is a reason for apprehension as this trend could give way to majoritarian politics and set precedent for unethical conduct in the political realm at large.

Works Cited:

Biswas, S. (2021, March 16). Electoral autocracy’: The downgrading of India’s democracy. Retrieved November 15, 2021, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56393944

Brien, D. O. (2020, September 11). The ordinance raj of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Retrieved October 29, 2021, from https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/the-ordinance-raj-of-the-bharatiya-janata-party/story-NlVvn0pm6updxwYlj0gSvJ.html

Brien, D. O. (2021, August 7). Autocratic Government doesn’t want Parliament to Function. (NDTV, Interviewer)

Brien, D. O. (2021, August 5). Indian Express. Retrieved October 31, 2021, from https://indianexpress.com/article/india/parliament-monsoon-session-bills-passed-derek-obrien-7440026/

Dam, S. (2015, June 3). Repromulgation Game. Retrieved October 30, 2021, from https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/legal-eye-column-repromulgation/article7275518.ece

Gowda, C. (2019, June 26). Missing secularism in National Education Policy. Retrieved November 7, 2021, from https://www.livemint.com/education/news/missing-secularism-in-new-education-policy-1561564775831.html

Gowda, M. R. (2021, August 16). The 2021 Monsoon Session Is Proof of Modi Govt’s Disregard for Parliament. Retrieved October 31, 2021, from https://thewire.in/government/the-2021-monsoon-session-is-proof-of-the-modi-govts-disregard-for-parliament

Guha, R. (2019, April 28). Modi Government’s surgical strike against science and scholarship. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://thewire.in/education/the-modi-governments-surgical-strike-against-science-and-scholarship

Jaffrelot, C. G. (2019). BJP in Power: Indian Democracy and Religious Nationalism. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Jha, J. a. (2019, September 10). India’s education budget cannot fund proposed education policy. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://www.indiaspend.com/indias-education-budget-cannot-fund-proposed-new-education-policy/

Kanwar, S. (2019, September 19). Importance of Parliamentary committees. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/importance-parliamentary-committees

Koshy, J. (2018, March 16). Stephen Hawking said Vedas had a ‘theory’ superior to Einstein’s thesis, says Harsh Vardan. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/stephen-hawking-said-vedic-theory-superior-to-einsteins-science-minister-claims/article23272193.ece

Lok Sabha Secretariate, N. D. (2014, May). How a bill becomes an act. Retrieved October 28, 2021, from Parliament of India – Lok Sabha: http://164.100.47.194/our%20parliament/How%20a%20bill%20become%20an%20act.pdf

Madhvan, M. (2021). Ordinance route is bad repromulgation is worse. PRS Legislative research. Retrieved October 27, 2021, from https://prsindia.org/articles-by-prs-team/the-ordinance-route-is-bad-repromulgation-worse

Madhvan, M. (2021, April 19). The Ordinance route is bad, repromulgation is worse. Retrieved October 27, 2021, from https://prsindia.org/articles-by-prs-team/the-ordinance-route-is-bad-repromulgation-worse

Menon, S. (2020, August 11). Imposing NEP on the states. Retrieved October 30, 2021, from https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/imposing-nep-on-states-124964

Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. New Delhi: MHRD, Government of India.

Nair, S. K. (2021, August 3). The Hindu. Retrieved November 3, 2021, from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/opposition-cries-foul-as-12-bills-were-passed-in-10-days-of-monsoon-session/article35707105.ece

Prakash, G. (2019). Emergency Chronicles. Princeton University Press.

Radhakrishnan, V. S. (2021, August 17). 2021 Monsoon session: LS passed 14 Bills after discussing each less than 10 minutes. Retrieved October 30, 2021, from The Hindu: https://www.thehindu.com/data/data-2021-monsoon-session-ls-passed-14-bills-after-discussing-each-less-than-10-minutes/article35955980.ece

Rahman, M. (2014, October 28). Indian prime minister claims genetic science existed in ancient times. Retrieved November 15, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/indian-prime-minister-genetic-science-existed-ancient-times

Raveendhren, R. S. (2020, August 19). New education policy and erosion of state powers. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/new-education-policy-and-erosion-of-states-powers/articleshow/77624663.cms

Sanghera, T. (2020, August 6). Modi’s textbook manipulations. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/06/textbooks-modi-remove-chapters-democracy-secularism-citizenship/

Sharma, N. (2020, August 18). New Education Policy an attempt to centralise education: Opposition-ruled states. Retrieved October 21, 2021, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/new-education-policy-an-attempt-to-centralise-education-opposition-ruled-states/articleshow/77604704.cms

December 26, 2021
Democracy and Legislation: Lack of Parliamentary Debates negates the Constitution and accountability to the People

Democratic principles have long been accepted as the cornerstone of Free India. Reaching beyond a mere organizational setup, democracy has been treated as the ideal through which equality and justice are sought to be ensured for the people.

Despite the well-recognised principles of equity and transparency in the practice of democracy, it is well established that various Governments, on many occasions in independent India’s history, have resorted to flouting constitutional democratic principles for personal gain; the widely criticized imposition of emergency under Indira Gandhi is one such example. It evident that the Indian people are once more confronted by a situation where the government of the day is guilty of flouting of democratic norms. This article examines various instances of current parliamentary practices in this context.

60 per cent of proposals were referred to Standing or Select Committees during the United Progressive Alliance’s first term. During the UPA-II administration, this rose to 71 per cent. NDA’s first term from 2014-19 had a 27 per cent reference rate, while it’s second term, so far, has only 12 per cent rate.

Institutional norms and parliamentary procedures in India, especially for legislation making are designed to ensure space for debate, discussion and dissent. This operates as a system where all decisions are subjected to scrutiny by the people’s representatives. To that end, whether a ruling party adheres to parliamentary procedure speaks volumes about the respect accorded to to the constitution and democracy at large. To analyse whether the current government is adhering to parliamentary procedures and by extension, if it is truly democratic, one must first ascertain what exactly constitutes the ideal parliamentary procedure.

Parliamentary Procedure on Legislation Making: How Does A Bill Become An Act

Acts usually start as bills which simply put, is the draft of a legislative proposal. This bill may be introduced by public members or private members and requires passing in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha as well as the president’s assent to become a law.

There are three stages through which a bill is passed in the parliament: these are known as the first, second and third reading respectively.

For the First Reading, the speaker puts forth the request for leave of the house, which if granted is used to introduce the bill. Following this stage is the second reading which entails general discussion. It is during this stage that the House may choose to refer the bill to a parliamentary committee for further input or even circulate it to gauge public opinion. During the second reading, parliamentary procedure states that a clause-by-clause reading must proceed and it is during this time amendments are moved. The second reading concludes with the adoption of ‘Enacting Formula’ and ‘Long Title of the Bill’. The next stage is the third and the last reading. At this Juncture, debates for and against the bill take place. For an ordinary bill, only a simple majority of the members present, and voting suffices, however for a constitutional amendment bill, in keeping with article 368 of the constitution, a majority of the house’s total members and at least 2/3^rd members present and voting is deemed necessary. Once this process is complete, the bill is sent to the other house of the parliament and goes through the same stages after which it is referred to the president for his assent.

Modi Government’s track-record of Passing of Bills

Leaders of opposition and Journalist reports have alleged that the aforementioned procedure has been cast aside by the current regime in favour of bulldozing the bills without debates. This argument is not without merit and one can identify some central ways in which the ruling party has violated parliamentary procedure.

The first and most grievous is the misuse of Article 123 also known as the Ordinance Route. Article 123 of the constitution permits the president to enact a temporary law in the event of urgent and unavoidable circumstances. It is clear that the Article 123 has been exploited by the current government.

During the first 30 years of our parliamentary democracy, for every 10 bills in the parliament, one ordinance was issued. In the following 30 years, this number went to 2 ordinances per every 10 bills. During the period 2014-2019 of the BJP government, this number went up to 3.5 ordinances per every ten bills. For perspective, while 61 ordinanceswere issued under the UPA government spanning ten years, the government led by the BJP issued 76 ordinances in a time frame of 7 years spanning from May 2014 to April 2021. It is also useful to note that ten of these ordinances were issued right before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

Astonishingly, as many as 11 ordinances have been passed since March 24^th, 2020, which is when the lockdown was imposed. Five of these relate to covid 19, two to the health sector, every other ordinance such as the Banking Regulation Amendment and the Agriculture bills do not have anything to do with the coronavirus pandemic.

States have also used ordinances to pass legislation. A non-BJP ruled state Kerala, for example, published 81 regulations in 2020, whereas Karnataka issued 24, and Maharashtra issued 21. Kerala has also re-promulgated ordinances: between January 2020 and February 2021, one ordinance to establish a Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation, and Technology was promulgated five times.

Although previous administrations have utilized ordinances to undermine the constitutional process, the problem is decidedly amplified under the present rule with regards to the number of ordinances produced per given period.

This sort of rise in Ordinances being issued points to a trend of avoiding in-depth critical evaluation and discussion on proposals by rushing them into becoming acts.

One of the most controversial ordinances in the recent past pertains to the three farm laws. The reason for not introducing these proposals in the parliament and instead enacting ordinances is unclear for there seems to be no urgent link to the covid 19 pandemic. Additionally, the farm bills not being subjected to any discussions nor being referred to parliamentary committees for any further report making has led to removing any possibility for amendment. These laws provide a useful avenue to assess why the bill was not passed through a proper parliamentary process and instead rushed through the ordinance.

The ordinance culture has also extended to BJP run states, for instance, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat adopted ordinances weakening labour laws without consulting workers’ unions or civil rights organisations during the lockdown. Moreover, this was followed up on 15^th March 2020, when colonial-era legislation was enacted as an Ordinance. This was the Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property Ordinance which would heavily fine any damage to property, public or private during a protest.

Moreover, the current administration can be observed violating the parliamentary procedure for there is very little or no involvement of parliamentary committees. Parliamentary committees are key in assessing a proposal with necessary scrutiny and expertise. These committees provide a place for Members to interact with subject experts and government officials while they are studying a bill.

60 per cent of proposals were referred to Standing or Select Committees during the United Progressive Alliance’s first term. During the UPA-II administration, this rose to 71 per cent. Prime minister Modi’s first term from 2014-19 had a 27 per cent reference rate, while his second term so far has a 12 per cent rate. Not only is there a blatant and marked disregard for referring bills to parliamentary committees, but the administration has also actively worked to hinder committee work. A meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology on July 28, 2021, had to be cancelled owing to a lack of quorum when 15 BJP members refused to sign the attendance register, it is speculated this was to avoid the discussion on the Pegasus scandal.

Monsoon Session of Parliament

The most recent monsoon session of the Parliament is an apt depiction of how the administration has bypassed the norms and rules of parliamentary procedure, endangering the democratic processes that citizens invest faith in.

A record number of 12 bills were passed by the parliament in the first 10 days of the monsoon session. All these bills were passed by a voice vote which is a tremendously inaccurate mechanism to assess supporters of a particular proposal. None of these 12 bills nor the overall 14 bills were referred to standing committees for in-depth analysis. According to TMC leader Derek O’Brien, the government rushed through and passed 12 Bills at an average time of under 7 minutes per bill. In the same vein, BSP MP Danish Ali commented that the Essential Defence Services Bill was passed in less than 10 minutes.

Be it the ordinance route, curtailing zero hour, the excessive use of voice vote or the bypassing of parliamentary committees, all point towards the same and devastating trend, the lack of adherence to parliamentary procedure. This must compel citizens to take stock of whether India needs a reminder on how democratic proceedings should proceed and accountability to the people be restored.

Feature Image: medium.com

November 21, 2021