The Peninsula Foundation

Blog

  • Indian citizenship concepts and definitions need a revisit

    Indian citizenship concepts and definitions need a revisit

    More than 600,000 Indians gave up their citizenship during the last five years, Union Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai informed the Lok Sabha. While 133,000 Indians gave up citizenship in 2017, it was 134,000 in 2018, 144,000 in 2019, 85,248 in 2020 and 111,000 in 2021 until 30 September. The dip during 2020 was, without any doubt, because of the pandemic. What entails in revoking citizenship is the surrender of the Indian passport as mandated by the Indian authorities since India does not allow dual citizenship unlike her co-subcontinental countries Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    While we do not have an idea about the reasons for the revocation of citizenship, the fact remains that these erstwhile Indian citizens, across the globe, have opted for citizenship of different countries (and that includes the passport of the country concerned) where they have been residents for varying periods. For all practical purposes, looked at from the lens of India’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, these former Indian citizens are “foreigners”. It may not be out of place to point out here that Padma Bhushan awardee and former ambassador to the US, Abid Hussain, had famously remarked that Indians have their heart in India, but their money in Swiss banks.


    Read More

  • Democracy in Retreat: India’s declining Parliamentary Practices and Debates

    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 42nd 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 16thand 17th 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 15th 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 15thLok Sabha. In the 16th Lok Sabha (2014-2019) this number jumped to 33 per cent while in the 17th 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

     

     

  • India and Vietnam Need to set up an Industry 4.0 Technology Task Force

    India and Vietnam Need to set up an Industry 4.0 Technology Task Force

    Amid the ongoing difficult times marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and the fear of its highly virulent Omicron variant spreading across the globe, India and Vietnam pledged to further deepen the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.  In this context, the recent visit to India by National Assembly Chairman Vuong Dinh Hue to New Delhi this month has strengthened the relationship between the two countries.  Also, next year, India and Vietnam would be celebrating the 50thanniversary of the establishment of their diplomatic relations and their legislative bodies plan to organise commemorative joint events both in New Delhi and Hanoi.

    Chairman Vuong Dinh Hue held wide-ranging discussions in New Delhi with India’s Vice President of India and Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Shri M Venkaiah Naidu and these focused on international matters of common concern and other global challenges. Both sides aim to contribute to global peace, security, stability and development in the region. At the bilateral level, issues concerning COVID-9, socio-economic development in respective countries, economy, trade & investment, energy, security-defence, science-technology, air connectivity, culture, education and training were also the agenda. As many as 12 MoUs were exchanged between Vietnamese and Indian enterprises in the fields of public health, provision of pharmaceutical materials, drug and vaccine production, oil and gas, information technology and technology transfer, education, and tourism.

    India acknowledged and extended gratitude for the timely supply by Vietnam of oxygen and related equipment and the gifting of 40,000 facemasks to the Indian Red Cross Society. As a reciprocal and goodwill gesture, India has announced a donation of 2,00,000 doses of indigenously developed Bharat Biotech COVAXIN to Vietnam through Duc Minh, Bharat Biotech’s local partner in Vietnam. It is useful to mention that Bharat Biotech has been working with Duc Minh Medical JSC, towards the commercialisation of INDIRAB (Inactivated Rabies Vaccine).

    The bilateral cooperation and mutually beneficial partnership between India and Vietnam in the field of energy are noteworthy. For the last three decades, India’s ONGC Videsh Limited (OVL) has been engaged in Vietnam’s offshore energy projects in the South China Sea. New Delhi is now seeking a 15-year extension of the existing arrangement beyond May 2023 when the current MOU between OVL and PetroVietnam (PVN) expires. India hopes that Vietnam and other claimants including China can establish a binding ‘Conduct of Conduct’ and develop concrete mechanisms to institutionalize a regional dialogue among the claimants and other stakeholders to serve for de-escalation of tensions.

    During his interactions, Chairman Vuong Dinh Hue was also assured of India’s support for the ASEAN Outlook for Indo Pacific (AOIP). External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has noted that “From the Indian perspective, Vietnam is a key partner both in the ASEAN and the Indo-Pacific context,” It was also reiterated that there is strong convergence between India’s Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI) and the AOIP and India is looking forward to continuing working closely with Vietnam.

    In an interview with a major Indian media house, Chairman Vuong Dinh Hue emphasised investments in the digital sphere to usher in Fourth Industrial Revolution in Vietnam. This fits into Vietnam’s call for greater investment from Indian corporations in fields such as information technology, innovation and renewable energy. Industry 4.0 technologies are high on Vietnam’s agenda and the Party and the State have introduced several policies, guidelines and programs to harness these technologies.  In particular, the country hopes that the digital component of the economy could account for about 20% of the GDP. According to a consulting company, Vietnam’s “GDP may rise by US$28.5-62.1 billion by 2030 depending on the level of technology put into use by businesses, or equivalent to an increase of between 7-16% of the GDP”.

    Earlier this year, Vietnam issued the National Strategy on the Fourth Industrial Revolution by 2030 under which Vietnam hopes to be named among the 40 top performers in the Global Innovation Index (GII), the top 30 in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)’s Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) and the top 50 in the United Nations (UN)’s e-Government Development Index (EGDI) by 2030.

    Vietnam is committed to expanding international cooperation and integration in science and technology, particularly the Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies. India too has similar ambitions and PM Modi highlighted the issue at the WEF’s Davos Digital Agenda, how India is harnessing AI and other technologies of the fourth industrial revolution for achieving its developmental objectives and for promoting social good. Given the political will of both sides, India and Vietnam could explore setting up a task force to ascertain areas of convergences.

     

    Image Credit: vir.com.vn

  • The Scylla and Charybdis of Duty Discharge: Military Dilemma with undemocratic Leaders

    The Scylla and Charybdis of Duty Discharge: Military Dilemma with undemocratic Leaders

    A week after the attack on the U.S. Capitol, the joint chiefs of staff issued a memorandum to the joint force condemning the assault on Congress and the constitutional process. They re-affirmed Joe Biden’s electoral victory and re-iterated their commitment to protecting and defending the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This re-iteration came on the heels of another. In the summer of 2020, senior military leaders in the United States were alarmed at the Trump administration’s use of military force to deter civilian protestors gathering in American cities to voice their discontent about racial discrimination and police brutality towards minority communities. Retired officers and seniors in the Defense Department warned against the politicization of the military and cautioned civilian leaders against using the military to achieve partisan goals. The Concerned Members of the Gray Line — a coalition of over 1,000 West Point alumni from six decades of graduating classes who had collectively served across ten presidential administrations — wrote a letter to West Point’s class of 2020 cautioning the graduates that while “the principle of civilian control is central to the military profession … it does not imply blind obedience.”

    These are just two examples of unprecedented steps taken by active and former senior military professionals in the tumultuous civil-military relations that characterized the Trump administration. Another example of an unprecedented action came to light recently in the form of revelations from Bob Woodward and Robert Costa’s forthcoming book, Peril, which suggest that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, took “good faith precaution” to secure America’s nuclear weapons from what he believed to be a worryingly likely scenario of the president “going rogue” and initiating a military strike against China. In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Milley feared that the outgoing president would either try to use the military to “prevent the peaceful transfer of power” or that he would unleash nuclear war to maintain power. To avert nuclear Armageddon, he inserted himself into the nuclear chain of command — an authority that he does not have by law and doctrine — and reaffirmed with other senior military officials the elaborate procedures that need to be followed in the event of an executive order to launch nuclear weapons. In so doing, Milley positioned himself as a bulwark to thwart a potentially calamitous chain of events set in motion by an increasingly erratic and bellicose leader. His actions have invited an array of responses, ranging from those who support himand defend his conduct to those who demand his resignation and implore that he be court-martialled for treason. In his testimony to the Senate Armed Forces Committee, Milley defended his loyalty to the nation and asserted that he acted well within his statutory role of being in the “chain of communication” as the president’s primary military adviser

    Milley’s conduct, while deserving of public awareness and scrutiny, needs to be understood in the context of the unprecedented dilemma that he faced. What can military leaders do when the norm of military subordination to civilian control clashes with their adherence to the constitution and the rule of law? Milley was a military professional confronting a civilian executive with a penchant for undermining democracy — obeying this leader would risk jeopardizing his oath to defend the constitution and the rule of law, while disobeying would threaten the norm of civilian supremacy and the military’s democratic accountability.

    In recent years, democratic backsliding has affected nascent and mature democracies alike. To preserve and extend their authority, leaders in the United States, Poland, Hungary, the Philippines, Brazil, Nicaragua, Turkey, and India have used and/or threatened to use the military to advance partisan goalslike enforcing controversial immigration policies, detaining journalists, repressing protests, arresting civil society activists, overturning election results or preventing elections from being held at all, and detaining opposition leaders. Understanding military behavior in other countries threatened by democratic erosion can help to contextualize the situation that Milley confronted and the actions that he undertook.

    Democracy and Civil-Military Relations

    The principal dilemma of all civil-military relations, as explained by civil-military relations scholar Peter Feaver, entails the cultivation of a military strong enough to do what civilian leaders ask yet subordinate enough to do so only when asked. Civilian control over a professional subordinate military is a quintessential element of democratic regimes. Non-democracies, on the other hand, are characterized by politically influential militaries that have either overthrown civilian leaders and usurped power through coups or have acted as powerful allies for civilian autocrats like in Syria and North Korea. Comparative politics scholar Dan Slater demonstrates how in many postcolonial regimes, militaries are powerful and effective brokers in ensuring authoritarian durability. As such, curbing the military’s politically aggressive tendencies involves bolstering civilian oversight mechanisms. For example, by punishing disobedient officers, monitoring the appropriate implementation of civilian orders, controlling their purse strings, and ensuring their accountability through public hearings, civilians could keep a check on the military.

    Whereas politically aggressive militaries used to be the dominant cause of democratic decline in the Cold War period, the decades after the Cold War became characterized by executive aggrandizement. This involves a gradual rollback by elected leaders of citizens’ power and rights. Societies with high levels of inequality, when saddled with political institutions that are unable to deliver opportunities for economic advancement, are particularly prone to being captured by demagogues. These “assassins of democracy” like Donald Trump, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Jair Bolsonaro, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orban, Daniel Ortega, and Rodrigo Duterte, among others, use the very institutions of democracy to kill it.

    In this context, the military’s actions are critical to further enhancing or eroding democracy. In dealing with undemocratic leaders, democratic militaries face an unenviable dilemma brought on by their tradition of subordination to civilian control. If they follow orders from an undemocratic leader, they become complicit in democratic erosion. If they disobey, they risk disrupting military cohesion. Populist leaders who are prone to using the military to further their partisan agendas end up affecting the military’s internal cohesion by creating supporters and detractors of their actions within the military. These fissures between supporters and opponents will inevitably paralyze decision-making, threaten the military’s operational effectiveness, and ultimately jeopardize national security.

    This was the dilemma confronted by the Indian military in the 1970s. Like the American military, the Indian armed forces are a professional subordinate institution, beholden to the precept of civilian control and obedience to the constitution and rule of law. And like their American counterparts, the Indian military have played a critical role in protecting India’s fragile postcolonial democracy through the vicissitudes of India’s chaotic politics.

    “India is Indira. Indira is India” 

    On June 25, 1975, the Indian president, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, declared a state of internal emergency upon the advice of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, citing a right-wing conspiracy that aimed at preventing the democratically elected government from functioning. Prior to the announcement of the emergency, India was in the throes of nationwide protests, with agitators clamoring for Gandhi’s resignation after her conviction for electoral malpractice by the Allahabad High Court, which unseated her and nullified her candidature and 1972 electoral victory. The emergency declaration had an immediate effect — 900 arrests were made within 24 hours, 300 of whom were political prisoners including Gandhi’s leading opponent, J. P. Narayan. During the 18-month emergency, Gandhi disempowered state governments, censored the press, banned public meetings, and postponed the national election, tarnishing India’s democratic credentials.

    The opposition implored the Indian army to dethrone Gandhi. Gandhi asked the army to support the implementation of the emergency. They did neither. In a massive rally organized on June 25 in the nation’s capital — New Delhi — Narayan appealed to “the police and armed forces not to obey the illegal and immoral orders of her [Gandhi’s] government” [emphasis added]. This was Gandhi’s last straw, leading to her swift and stealthy imposition of an emergency, as she acutely feared military intransigence and being overthrown in a coup. In a telling incident from 1969, Gandhi candidly asked former field marshal Sam Manekshaw if he planned to oust her. The military, however, refused to heed Narayan’s appeals and did not overthrow her. As explained by Aqil Shah, “the Indian military’s actions were shaped by institutional standards of appropriate behavior which made the notion of a constitutionally prescribed civilian supremacy inviolable and legitimate.” Not only did the military’s organizational beliefs and culture reinforce the norm of civilian supremacy, they also imbibed a learned behavior from their neighbor about the futility of political meddling. In Shah’s interviews with Indian Army officers: “many were typically surprised, and in some cases offended, by any comparison with other ‘political’ armies, including Pakistan. They found it profoundly difficult to countenance actions that constituted subversion of civil supremacy.”

    The army also remained uninvolved in the emergency’s implementation. Gandhi asked the then Indian army chief, Gen. T. N. Raina, for troops to aid civilian authorities in the implementation of her directives. According to retired Maj. Gen. Afsir Karim, who was serving in the army headquarters at the time and was involved in daily official dealings with the army chief’s office, Raina resisted Gandhi’s request and communicated to the military rank and file that “[they] are not a part of the emergency and [should] keep away from politics.” This refusal, however, contravenes their constitutionally prescribed function of obeying civilian authority. How did the army not become complicit in Gandhi’s authoritarian takeover when refusal to obey her meant the subversion of civilian control?

    In this dilemma, the Indian army feared a disruption to their organizational integrity and internal cohesion. Gen. G.G. Bewoor, another former chief of army staff, opined that the army “must protect itself against political influences that could shatter its professional cohesion and erode its capacity to defend the state against external aggression or internal conflict.” [emphasis added] To maintain cohesion and ensure that his troops remained unsullied by politicization, Raina circumvented the issue of obedience versus disobedience by relying on his operational training and professional experience as a trained soldier. When approached by the civilian Ministry of Defence, he instructed the army headquarters to follow the Union War Book, a voluminous classified document that contains detailed instructions for every government department on how to function in the event of war. Invoking the Union War Book implied a deployment for war. This was along the lines of the military’s well-established repertoire of action — the large-scale use of force as dictated by the army’s conventional offensive doctrine that has shaped their crisis behavior and strategy in all security crises since India’s independence. A mobilization on this scale meant the relocation of troops away from India’s restive western and eastern border regions to the national capital and other parts of the country as desired by civilian policymakers. However, the Defence Ministry rejected the army’s proposal, viewing it as “unnecessary for the purposes of an internal Emergency.”

    Raina confronted an elected leader who centralized authority, suspended judicial hearings on constitutional provisions, and undermined democracy. This example is illustrative of how democratic militaries can navigate the dilemma posed by subordination in the context of democratic erosion. The Indian army rejected the opposition’s attempts to co-opt them by reinforcing the norm of civilian supremacy. Simultaneously, they circumvented being used as a pawn in Gandhi’s authoritarian machinations by re-affirming their cardinal function — maintaining national security.

    On Jan. 7, 2021, Milley faced a similarly exceptional conundrum. In his attempt to not let the military be used in a partisan manner by the president and to avert a potential military confrontation with China, he exercised his professional judgment in a manner similar to Raina. Like its Indian counterpart, the U.S. military is organizationally and normatively well-versed in maintaining civilian supremacy, ensuring that coups are never countenanced as a way of expressing disapproval with civilian leaders.

    However, fearing further instability and threats to national security, Milley’s outreach to his Chinese counterpart and his insertion into the nuclear chain of command both leveraged his traditional training and professional experience in averting conventional wars. As argued by Tom Nichols, “Milley, invoking his personal relationship with his Chinese counterpart, told Li that he would hear about any military action from Milley himself. This is what reassurance and transparency looks like in a crisis.” Milley’s knowledge of and personal relationship with Gen. Li Zuocheng can be thought of as a critical wartime resource — both would also have come in handy in the event of an actual military operation. His backchannel reassurances to his Chinese counterpart helped to thwart a nuclear confrontation. In so doing, he stayed true to his higher calling of defending the nation, even when that seemed to undermine civilian supremacy.

    Exceptional circumstances beget exceptional responses. While military officers have a general duty to obey civilian control, they also take an oath to protect the constitution. When compared to other states that have experienced violent civil-military interactions, the United States has benefitted from a relatively stable relationship between its civilian leaders and its military. Obedience to civilian control implies obedience to constitutional and lawful orders. However, the former president delighted in upending norms in politics and civil-military relations, creating situations where obedience to civilian control clashed with protecting the rule of law. In this unprecedented situation, Milley relied on his best understanding of protecting the state — one that was honed through decades of professional experience and service. Shortly before his inauguration, Biden told the general, “we know what you went through. We know what you did.” The president’s confidence in his chief military adviser is a testament to Milley’s professional conduct in upholding American democracy.

     

    This article was published earlier in War on the Rocks.

    Feature Image Credit: theemergingindia.com 

     

  • UAE’s industrialization drive and the potential for Sovereign Wealth Funds to unlock value

    UAE’s industrialization drive and the potential for Sovereign Wealth Funds to unlock value

    The United Arab Emirates has renewed its commitment to the fourth industrial revolution recently with an ambitious target of increasing the industrial sector’s contribution from AED133 billion to AED300 billion (US$ 81.7 billion) by 2031. The main objectives of this ten-year strategy are to leapfrog towards knowledge-intensive industries, apply technology-intensive solutions to retrofit current industries, and push manufacturing in industries like aerospace, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, etc. However, these objectives are not novel. While the early development plans of the emirates’ primarily focused on diversifying the economy from hydrocarbon revenues, the ultimate objective was to expand towards knowledge-intensive industries. In line with this, economic development plans as early as 1991 record the rulers’ interests in building a manufacturing-oriented economy, but the success is yet to materialize. Even in the case of the most diversified emirate – Dubai, the main drivers of the economy as of 2020 were entrepot activities like trade (26.5%), transportation and storage (12.5%), and financial services (9.7%), while manufacturing contributed to 8.8%. These statistics can be further appreciated by recollecting that from the early 1990s, development plans for Dubai were made under the assumption that the annual real growth rate in its manufacturing sector would meet 7%.[1]  As of 2020, the growth rate in manufacturing is only 0.3%. While manufacturing-oriented industrialization was to play a key role in the economy, there have been considerable challenges in realizing it. This article first briefly recalls the historical development efforts of the emirate, then discusses reasons which could have hindered the country’s trajectory towards knowledge-intensive manufacturing, and highlights a potential development instrument the country can utilize to realize its objectives in the present day.

    Federal Structure and overcoming the Inequalities

    Being a federation every emirate was offered autonomy which retained the control of resources of the respective emirates’ within respective ruling families. This resulted in vast inequalities amidst emirates with Abu Dhabi and Dubai becoming relatively well off compared to others. The remaining emirates were dependent on the budget provisions from oil-rich Abu Dhabi to maintain the social contract over their respective emirates. This internal dynamic resulted in different approaches being taken for economic development in the country. To briefly summarize some of them – Dubai invested in infrastructure to improve its entrepot facilities and industrialize in sectors associated with hydrocarbon resources, Abu Dhabi began focusing on renewable energy and clean technology from the early 2000s,  Ras al-Khaimah benefitted from its low-cost production environment (up to 25-50% lower than in other emirates) to become the country’s manufacturing base, and Fujairah developed a storage and bunkering expertise due to its geographical location beyond the chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz.[2] The developmental push from the emirates created a boom mainly in industries associated with hydro-carbon, real-estate, logistics, and finance. Although official data on sector-wise contribution to GDP remain unpublished, World Bank data confirms that as of 2019 about 16% of the UAE’s GDP is accredited to hydrocarbon sources. It also confirms that as of 2019, manufacturing value-added as a percentage of GDP stood at 8.7%.

    In the context of UAE, the viability of proceeding with labour-intensive industries as a starting point was low as the country has a small Emirati population. Second, while most late developing countries have resorted to wage suppression to make production costs competitive, the UAE is restricted from doing so owing to the social contract it shares with its citizens

    Despite the autonomy every emirate has enjoyed, the overarching approach the country has used for economic development is to invite foreign firms to the country by providing business-friendly infrastructure and environment.[3]For the emirate of Dubai, which was most successful in diversification, Singapore’s development model was an inspiration for implementing policies promoting business-friendly infrastructure and environment.[4] Among potential factors that explain the challenge in the uptake of knowledge-intensive manufacturing in the UAE, this article focuses on two – First, the inherent characteristic of firm relocation, and second, the existence of a twin labour market in the country with high wage levels. Helleiner argued that it is easier to scale to knowledge-intensive industries when labour-intensive production processes exist locally, this way, production activities can upgrade vertically. The logic was that direct relocation of knowledge-intensive functions of industries would imply high costs to the firm. His thesis was based on the development of the Asian tigers whose development process benefitted from the vertical up-gradation of industrial activity. In the context of UAE, the viability of proceeding with labour-intensive industries as a starting point was low as the country has a small Emirati population. Second, while most late developing countries have resorted to wage suppression to make production costs competitive, the UAE is restricted from doing so owing to the social contract it shares with its citizens. UAE nationals are instead offered much better employment packages in the public sector which deters their participation in the private sector.[5] As a result, the private sector across all skill levels is significantly dependent on expatriate labour. In addition to this, foreign talents are paid twice as much as their home countries across all skill levels. Tong and Al Awad demonstrate that this is true not only for low-skilled and semi-skilled jobs but also for high-skilled jobs by comparing the average wages of high-skilled expatriates from the US and the UK. They compare their wage levels at home and in Dubai, control for purchasing power parities, and find that the salaries are twice as that in their home countries. Competition for knowledge-intensive industries has predominantly arisen from the global North and as income levels in the UAE are twice as much as that in developed countries, there is an inherent risk on the price competitiveness of products on a global scale.

    Development model, SWF, and Top-down Approach

    A difference in the UAE’s late development model relative to others in the category is that while the latter was challenged in capital accumulation, it was easily accrued for the UAE. The difficulty for the UAE lies in using accumulated capital to break the dependency. Thus, the way forward for the UAE lies in a radical rethinking of its development model. Where vertical integration by first relocating labour-intensive industries demonstrates a bottom-up approach to development, the UAE is better positioned to approach development in a top-down model of vertical integration having accumulated capital. Although public sector investment and involvement in the economy is high, there exists scope to increase the synergies between industry-leading companies and local producers through the public sector. In this case, a policy instrument with the potential to push economic development is the state’s Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs).

    The channelling of SWFs as a development policy instrument provides an opportunity for greater collaboration between international industry leaders and local businesses. Investing in the economic diversification of the country has been an important objective for the state’s SWFs. Some noticeable instances where the SWFs have built linkages between international companies and local businesses have been in the aerospace sector.[6] For instance, Mubadala entered into strategic partnerships with Airbus and Boeing in 2008 and 2009 respectively and launched Strata Manufacturing as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mubadala in 2009. Soon after Strata Manufacturing was launched, the company concluded agreements with both Airbus and Boeing to manufacture aircraft parts at its aerostructures manufacturing facility in Al-Ain. This further continued when Strata Manufacturing received a ten-year contract from Boeing for the manufacture of Boeing 777’s empennage ribs and vertical fin rib for Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner. This development model is novel because it demonstrates how embedded autonomy, a key feature in the East Asian development model, can be replicated while collaborating with established international companies for economic development at home. Sovereign Wealth Funds as an institutional investor demonstrate how the state can be at the forefront of national development efforts from a transnational level.

    This top-down model of economic development through SWFs is a novel use of the investment vehicle as a policy instrument. It allows the state to direct development from a transnational level, which is an important operational condition for developmental states in an era of globalization

    An important lesson from late developers in East Asia and Southeast Asia is that state-directed capitalism is important for economic development. This top-down model of economic development through SWFs is a novel use of the investment vehicle as a policy instrument. It allows the state to direct development from a transnational level, which is an important operational condition for developmental states in an era of globalization. Although the UAE has demonstrated the use of this instrument in some cases, there is great potential to further drive economic development towards the fourth industrial revolution through SWFs. There will likely be more linkages built between local businesses and international companies through SWFs as the UAE moves forward to a knowledge-intensive economy. As the article highlighted above, there will be challenges moving forward in ensuring price competitiveness at a global level when operating in a labour market with price distortions. To this end, the challenge remains in finding innovative financing mechanisms by state investors in the short run and for policymakers to introduce suitable policies for correcting the price distortions in the long run. This ongoing effort in the UAE requires a closer examination from researchers, development practitioners, and policymakers as it is a unique development model and has the potential to deliver promising developmental lessons.

     

    Notes

    [1] Euromoney; London”, Periodical, (1997), World Economic Analysis, United Arab Emirates Document no.:198889294, ProQuest One Business.

    [2] Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates, The United Arab Emirates: Power, Politics And Policy-Making, p.87-129, Routledge, 2017.

    [3] Davidson, Christopher. The United Arab Emirates: A Study In Survival. 1st ed. Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005.

    [4] Sampler, Jeffrey, and Saeb Eigner. Sand To Silicon. Dubai, UAE: Motivate Publ., 2008.

     

    [5] Davidson, Christopher. The United Arab Emirates: A Study In Survival. 1st ed. Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005.

     

    [6] Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates, The United Arab Emirates: Power, Politics And Policy-Making, p.103-108, Routledge, 2017.

     

    Feature Image Credit: Asharq AL-awsat

  • Vietnam and Russia Commit to Engagements across Domains

    Vietnam and Russia Commit to Engagements across Domains

    Vietnamese President Nguyen Xuan Phuc has completed a “very successful and meaningful” visit to Russia with both sides making commitments to reinforce the comprehensive strategic partnership that spans multifaceted engagements across domains. Vietnam figures prominently in the Russian foreign policy and their bonhomie is best demonstrated by the fact that President Vladimir Putin has visited the country five times, a number more than any other country.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and President of Vietnam Nguyen Xuan Phuc made a statement in the wake of their talks in Moscow – “The relations of comprehensive strategic partnership between the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam are based upon years-long traditions of friendship and mutually beneficial cooperation, laid down by the previous generations. They have been tested by time, they are not affected by conjuncture oscillations, and serve as an example of mutually respectful cooperation that corresponds to the basic interests of the two countries”

    President Nguyen Xuan Phuc’s visit to Russia merits attention from at least five perspectives. First at the politico-diplomatic levels: both sides have a common understanding of international issues; they endorse a multipolar world order; guided by the principles of resolving major conflicts in the world through diplomacy based on respect for international law. Moscow also acknowledges the increasing role of the ASEAN and Vietnam as important Member State. Russia has also agreed to “explore promising areas of cooperation” within the framework of the ASEAN Outlook for Indo-Pacific.

    Second, the Vietnam-Russia bilateral trade has made significant strides. Their bilateral trade reached US$4.05 billion in the first ten months of 2020 and Russia ranked 24 among 129 countries and territories investing in Vietnam. Russia plans to increase its offshore energy business in the country and the joint statement notes that “creation of favourable conditions for the expansion of activities of Russian and Vietnamese oil and gas companies in the territories of the two states and the implementation of joint projects in third countries in accordance with international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the national legislation of Russia and Vietnam”;  however, it is important to mention that there are frequent standoffs. For instance, there was a major standoff in the Vanguard Bank involving 50 Vietnamese and 40 Chinese vessels over the operations of the drilling rig Hakuryu 5 operated by Russia’s Rosneft in Vietnam’s oil and gas Block 06-01.

    Third, their bilateral defence and security cooperation is well established and in September this year, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Vietnamese counterpart Bui Thanh Son announced plans to ramp up military-technical cooperation including setting up a centre for nuclear science and technologies in Vietnam. Vietnamese military has acquired Russian origin naval and air platforms (Kilo Class submarines and SU-30MKK fighter jets) and the bilateral trade in arms increased from US$ 293 million (1993-99) to US$ 6514 million (1999-2018) and constituted nearly 84 per cent of all its military purchases.

    Fourth is about the COVID-19 pandemic that continues to rage in the world and its new variant Omicron bringing new fears. Vietnam has been impacted severely by the pandemic and has recently begun to open up. The US and China have provided it with vaccines. During President of Vietnam Nguyen Xuan Phuc visit to Russia, the  Russian Direct Investment Fund has signed an agreement for the “expansion of cooperation with partners in Vietnam aimed at the production of the Russian Sputnik V vaccine” involving the Russian pharmaceutical company Binnopharm Group and Vietnam’s T&T GROUP. RDIF, leading to creating a full-cycle production of Sputnik V in Vietnam.

    Fifth is the US-led Indo Pacific initiatives that clearly target China.  It merits mention that the joint statement issued at the end of the Summit notes that Russia and Vietnam “do not enter alliances and do not sign agreements with third countries to carry out actions that harm each other’s independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and basic interests,” and that “the development of Russian-Vietnamese relations is not aimed against any third side.”

    Vietnam has no plans to align with the US’ Indo Pacific strategy or any US initiatives that target China even though it has disputes with China in the South China Sea. Russia has stayed clear of the South China Sea disputes and has not supported China. It is conscious that it enjoys cordial relations with the majority of the ASEAN Member States.

    Meanwhile, the Russian Navy recently conducted joint exercises with the ASEAN navies including the Vietnamese Navy. The Russian ambassador to the ASEAN has stated that the exercises were about “peace, stability and prosperity in the region,” and the Indonesian first fleet commander said the exercise “enhance the interoperability and understanding between the Russian and ASEAN militaries”. Interestingly, these exercises are also being viewed as signalling ASEAN’s principle of non-alignment, particularly in current times of high regional tensions given that the ASEAN navies held similar exercises with the PLA Navy. The ASEAN Member States routinely conduct bilateral military-naval exercises with the navies of the US, Japan, Australia, India, France and the UK.

    Vietnam has adopted a pragmatic foreign policy and successive leadership have successfully managed tensions in the South China Sea. Likewise, Russia has major stakes in augmenting regional stability which provides for crucial convergences between Hanoi and Moscow.

     

    Feature Image Credit: tass.com

  • The Rich World’s Climate Hypocrisy

    The Rich World’s Climate Hypocrisy

    Many people around the world already consider the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow a disappointment. That is a massive understatement. Global leaders – especially in the developed world – still fail to grasp the gravity of the climate challenge. Although they acknowledge its severity and urgency in their speeches, they mostly pursue short-term national interests and make conveniently distant “” emissions pledges without clear and immediate commitments to act.

    Many of the statements by developed-country leaders at the COP26 summit in Glasgow are at odds with their actual climate policies, and with what they say in other settings. Their short-sighted strategy ultimately benefits no one – including the powerful corporate interests whose immediate financial interests it serves

    For example, could the real US government please stand up and declare itself? In his recent address in Glasgow, President Joe Biden said that “as we see current volatility in energy prices, rather than cast it as a reason to back off our clean energy goals, we must view it as a call to action.” Indeed, “high energy prices only reinforce the urgent need to diversify sources, double down on clean energy deployment, and adapt promising new clean-energy technologies.”

    But just three days later, the Biden administration claimed that OPEC+ is endangering the global economic recovery by not increasing oil production. It even warned that the United States is prepared to use “all tools” necessary to reduce fuel prices.

    This is one of the most blatant recent examples of climate hypocrisy by a developed-country leader, but it is by no means the only one. And the duplicity extends to the proceedings at COP26 itself, where developing-country negotiators are apparently finding that advanced economies’ positions in closed-door meetings are quite different from their public stances.

    Rich countries, which are responsible for the dominant share of global carbon-dioxide emissions to date, are dithering on longstanding commitments to provide climate finance to developing countries. They are also resisting a proposed operational definition that would prevent them from fudging what counts as climate finance. And they are still treating adaptation to climate change as a separate stream and refusing to provide finance to avert, minimize, and address the loss and damage associated with climate change in the worst-affected countries.

    The declared COP26 promises also reveal the developed world’s double standards. A group of 20 countries, including the US, pledged to end public financing for “unabated” fossil-fuel projects, including those powered by coal, by the end of 2022. But the prohibition applies only to international projects, not domestic ones. Significantly, the US and several other signatories refused to join the 23 countries that separately committed to stop new coal-power projects within their borders and phase out existing coal infrastructure.

    But even if the pledges in Glasgow had been more solid, rich-country governments, in particular, face a major credibility problem. They have previously made too many empty climate promises, undermining the interests of developing countries that have contributed little to climate change. Advanced economies have made emissions-reduction commitments that they have not kept, and reneged on their assurances to developing countries regarding not only climate finance but also technology transfer.

    The climate finance commitment is now 12 years old. At COP15 in Copenhagen, advanced economies promised to provide $100 billion per year to the developing world, and the 2015 Paris climate agreement made it clear that all developing countries would be eligible for such financing. This amount is trivial relative to developing countries’ need, which is in the trillions of dollars, and also when compared to the vast sums that rich countries have spent on fiscal and monetary support for their economies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    But the developed world has not fulfilled even this relatively modest pledge. In 2019, total climate finance channeled to developing countries was less than $80 billion; the average amount each year since 2013 was only $67 billion. And this figure massively overstated the actual flows from developed-country governments, because bilateral public climate finance (which should have been provided to the developing world under the Paris accord) averaged less than $27 billion per year. The remainder came from multilateral institutions – including development banks – and private finance, which rich-country governments sought to take credit for mobilizing. Compared to this paltry sum, global fossil-fuel subsidies amounted to an estimated $555 billion per year from 2017 to 2019.

    Likewise, the rich world’s promises of green technology transfer have become mere lip service. Developed-country governments allowed domestic companies to cling to intellectual-property rights that block the spread of critical knowledge for climate mitigation and adaptation. When countries like China and India have sought to encourage their own renewable-energy industries, the US, in particular, has filed complaints with the World Trade Organization.

    This short-sighted strategy ultimately benefits no one, including the firms whose immediate financial interests it serves, because it accelerates the planet’s destruction and the revenge of nature on what now appears to be terminally stupid humanity. The student and activist marches in Glasgow against this myopic approach are important but are nowhere near enough to force governments to change course.

    The problem is that powerful corporate interests are clearly intertwined with political leadership. People around the world, and especially in the Global North, must become much more vociferous in insisting on meaningful climate action and a real change in economic strategy that resonates beyond national borders. Only that can end the rich world’s green hypocrisy and save us all.

    This article was published earlier in project-syndicate.org

  • Cambodia Assumes Chairmanship of the ASEAN

    Cambodia Assumes Chairmanship of the ASEAN

    While there is euphoria in Phnom Penh over the new responsibility, Prime Minister Hun Sen inherits at least five challenges from the previous ASEAN Chairmanship under Brunei.

    The gavel representing the ASEAN has arrived in Phnom Penh and it is a proud moment for the country to hold the position of Chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) for the third time after joining the grouping in 1999. In his customary remarks, Prime Minister Hun Sen announced that his country is “committed to leading ASEAN by championing the 2022 theme of “ASEAN Act” – Addressing Challenges Together – to increase harmony, peace and prosperity across the whole region”. He also assured to “uphold the core spirit of ASEAN’s basic principles of “One Vision, One Identity and One Community,”

    While there is euphoria in Phnom Penh over the new responsibility, Prime Minister Hun Sen inherits at least five challenges from the previous ASEAN Chairmanship under Brunei. First is the South China Sea.  Prime Minister HunSen did not hesitate to refer to it as “an unwelcome guest which now turns up on ASEAN’s doorstep annually and without fail”. He even labelled it a “very hot rock” amid fears that his country could be  “tossed” requiring sophisticated diplomacy wherein it is necessary to “catching it to avoid getting burned”

    In this context, it is useful to recall the 26 October 2021 Chairman’s Statement of the 24th ASEAN-China Summit which emphasised the “importance of non-militarisation and self-restraint in the conduct of all activities by claimants and all other states, including those mentioned in the DOC that could further complicate the situation and escalate tensions in the South China Sea”. China continues to engage in exploration activities in the region much to the discomfort of the Philippines. Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia. Also, the Chinese coast guard vessels have engaged in coercion and their operations potentially undermine the ongoing negotiations on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (COC).

    The second is about ASEAN’s post-pandemic economic recovery. So far ASEAN Member States’ economic indicators are quite promising and marked by positive growth rates. Cambodia has an opportunity to prepare the region and the human resources for the impending disruption that will be marked by Industry 4.0 technologies. It requires regional digitalisation and impetus to fintech through innovation pivoting on resilience across sectors. This issue is also highlighted in the Chairman’s Statement of the 38th and 39th ASEAN Summits. The ASEAN Leaders’ Statement on Advancing Digital Transformation in ASEAN has also called for strengthening “regional digital integration and transformation to enhance the region’s competitiveness, and turn the current pandemic crisis into an opportunity through digital transformation.”

    The third issue is about Myanmar. It may be recalled that Myanmar did not participate in the 38th and 39thASEAN Summits after the ASEAN decided to bar Myanmar’s military chief Min Aung Hlaing to join the meeting. This decision, by all accounts, was a “rare bold step by a regional grouping known for its non-interference and engagement”. Prime Minister Hun Sen is concerned about the possibility of a humanitarian crisis in the country and was quite candid to note that the “situation in Myanmar could escalate – and maybe even turn into a full-scale civil war – and so Cambodia must be well-prepared and ready to deal with any potential crisis there.”

    The fourth priority for Cambodia as the Chairmanship of the ASEAN would be to take forward the objectives and principles of the ASEAN Outlook for Indo Pacific (AIOP) initiative. ASEAN’s engagement in the wider Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions would be in four key areas i.e.  Maritime cooperation, connectivity, UN SDGs 2030, economic and other possible areas of cooperation. However, the grouping believes that the existing ASEAN-led mechanisms should drive the AIOP for which Cambodia would have to marshal all diplomatic skills at its disposal to convince the major players in the Indo-Pacific of the importance of the AOIP as also about ASEAN’s centrality.

    Although AUKUS did not feature in Prime Minister Hun Sen’s remarks or the Chairman’s statement on the 38th and 39th ASEAN Summits, it looms large in the minds of the Member States

    Fifth, Cambodia would have to develop a sophisticated response to the AUKUS which has added a new dimension to the existing security challenges emerging from the QUAD which is allegedly targeted against China. Although AUKUS did not feature in Prime Minister Hun Sen’s remarks or the Chairman’s statement on the 38th and 39th ASEAN Summits, it looms large in the minds of the Member States. Indonesian and Malaysian are concerned fearing that the development can result in an arms race and encourage the buildup of power projection capabilities; however, the Philippines has welcomed the AUKUS.  The current situation is akin to the division among the ASEAN Member States over the presence of the Western military in the region. AUKUS has provoked China too and it can potentially intensify US-China military contestation in the western Pacific that further adds to insecurities among the Southeast Asian countries.

    Finally, Cambodia’s Chairmanship of the ASEAN attracts numerous challenges but it remains to be seen how Phnom Penh steers the ASEAN in the coming months particularly when the US too has come down heavily with sanctions on Cambodia after it permitted a Chinese company to build military-naval infrastructure at the Ream Naval Base arguing that it threatens regional security.

    Image Credit: cambodianess.com

  • Democracy and Legislation: Lack of Parliamentary Debates negates the Constitution and accountability to the People

    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 2/3rd 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 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 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.

    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 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.

    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

  • Drought or Floods? : Tamil Nadu Needs An Integrated Water Management Policy

    Drought or Floods? : Tamil Nadu Needs An Integrated Water Management Policy

    Tamil Nadu not only requires a more sustainable and scientific approach to water management but an integrated development model that no longer separates the human environment, basic needs, ecological justice and public accountability   

    Every time we are faced with drought or floods, we all complain about the absence of a more sustainable water management policy in the state.  Politicians and the political parties blame each other and present competing narratives of their achievements when people are caught in deep crises of survival either due to bad drought or worse floods.  The bureaucrats, police, public charity and the brave hearts work round the clock while the government monitors the rescue, relief and resettlement of the victims though patterns and intensity of engagements differ between the floods and drought situation.

    We then return to our normal selves when the floods recede and the victims of extreme drought disappear from our sight.  What happened to the excessive water during the floods and the thirsty/hungry people in drought situations who seemed to have gone out of sight? It is important to argue for a more sustainable water management policy and at the same time explore the challenges in developing and executing such a policy. We do not have an open and democratic media/socio-political environment to discuss and debate between the ministers, bureaucrats, experts, non-state actors and creative members of the civil society beyond the blame game. A curious gap is that there are no solutions emerging while causes are either understated or overemphasized by different experts and groups depending on their professional background and personal worldview.

     

    The government appears to be in a catch-22 situation over urbanization, industrialization, population growth, migrations, and the urban slums.  The impact of rural poverty, state of agriculture, unemployment, migrations as well as the level of the rural-urban divide has not been studied adequately even in a developed state like Tamil Nadu.  But there is no escape from the truth that the government is the major violator and path setter for more violations of environmental principles and laws of nature by the greedy builders and corporate interests.

    It may be relevant to recall here the Chennai floods in 2015 and the worse water shortage in less than four years time in 2019.  Besides rapid industrialization and massive urbanization issues, Chennai is also faced with the challenges of climate change which is altering the weather patterns resulting in deadly floods and prolonged droughts.  Given the nature of challenges, there is a need to move beyond developing an appropriate water management policy and strengthening climate change resilience towards addressing core concerns of our democracy such as the absence of public accountability and rights without responsibilities.

     

    Chennai’s water bodies have shrunk at an alarming rate without much public attention. Every lake that has disappeared in Chennai had been part of our ecological system. Pallikaranai marshland has unfortunately been forced to yield land to hospitals, government buildings and educational institutions including (paradoxically) the Indian Institute of Technology – Madras (IIT-M) and National Institute of Ocean Technology.

    Chennai’s water bodies have shrunk at an alarming rate without much public attention. Every lake that has disappeared in Chennai had been part of our ecological system. Pallikaranai marshland has unfortunately been forced to yield land to hospitals, government buildings and educational institutions including (paradoxically) the Indian Institute of Technology – Madras (IIT-M) and National Institute of Ocean Technology. Today, Ennore creek faces a much bigger threat than ever before.  It is time we discuss more openly about our public policy, political culture, and abuse of social power, corruption in public life and the lack of environmental ethics. In intrinsic terms, this reveals about a political society without a conscience for environmental justice which forms the basis of social justice, distributional justice and good governance.

    The percentage culture and corruption prevalent among the politicians cutting across the party and political loyalties and the nexus between the politicians, bureaucrats and the business interests are one of the most unfortunate but successful stories of decentralization of public administration in Tamil Nadu.  If these arguments appear unreasonable, then how do we explain the rise and role of sand mafias, stone quarry contractors, timber lobbies, water industry and corporate bodies engaged in mineral extraction and exploitation?  These are not unspecified and general observations because of the fact that these individuals and the corporates control the lakes, rivers, forests, seashores, land access and ultimately the policy process within the government. Although slum dwellers, settlers along the river banks and seashores as well as forest people appear as main violators of the laws of State, yet the truth is vastly different.  The Palar River in the north, Cauvery River flowing through the west to east and the Tamiraparani River in the south of Tamil Nadu bear testimonies to this brutal reality of sand quarrying and criminal nexus between politicians, bureaucrats, industrialists and the sand mafia in Tamil Nadu.

    We need to question our materialistic approach to progress in the name of growth and development.  It is not adequate to boast about our progress in social justice and the inclusive model of development without environmental justice and responsibility to our future generations.  Tamil Nadu not only requires a more sustainable and scientific approach to water management but an integrated development model that no longer separates the human environment, basic needs, ecological justice and public accountability.