Moving beyond the Panchsheel deception

Moving beyond the Panchsheel deception
The biggest problem in Sino-Indian relations is the utter lack of ingenuity and innovativeness. Six decades after the formal engagement through Panchsheel and five decades after the bloody disengagement due to the 1962 War, leaders of both the countries struggle to come up with new and out-of-the-box answers to the problems plaguing their relationship.
When there are no new ideas, one resorts to symbolism and rituals. These are projected as the great new ideas to kickstart a new relationship. However, there is nothing great or new about them. They are the very same worn out and tried-tested-and-failed actions of the last several decades.
The Panchsheel itself is one ritual that successive Indian governments have unfailingly performed. Vice President Hamid Ansari will be visiting Beijing today to uphold India’s commitment to the ritual. The occasion is the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Panchsheel Agreement.
It was exactly six decades ago, on June 28, 1954, roughly two months after the formal signing of the Panchsheel, that Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai visited India. He and then-prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru had issued a historic statement, reaffirming their commitment to the five principles enshrined in the Panchsheel to “lessen the tensions that exist in the world today and help in creating a climate of peace”.
Contrary to public perception or propaganda, Panchsheel was actually an agreement between the “Tibetan region of China and India” on “trade and intercourse”. It did include five principles, like mutual respect, mutual non-aggression, mutual benefit, peaceful coexistence, etc, but the very title of the agreement was a defeat for India.
The British had, at least from the Simla Accord of 1912 until they left India, not conceded that Tibet was a part of China. Unfortunately, one of the first foreign policy deviations of the Nehru government was the signing of the Panchsheel, wherein India had formally called the Tibetan region as “of China”. Thus the Panchsheel was signed as a treaty of peaceful coexistence over the obituary of Tibetan independence. That was why parliamentarian Acharya Kripalani called the agreement as “born in sin”.
The Panchsheel met its end just three months after its signing, when the Chinese were found violating Indian borders in Ladakh in late-1954. A formal death note was written by Mao Zedong a few months before the 1962 war, when he told Zhou that what India and China should practice is not “peaceful coexistence” but “armed coexistence”. The war followed and ended in humiliation and loss of territory for India. It left behind a massive border dispute that continues to haunt both the countries.
However, this didn’t seem to deter the Indian and, to some extent, the Chinese leadership in continuing with the deception of the Panchsheel. The history of Sino-Indian relations in the last five decades isreplete with instances of violations of sovereignty, mutual animosity, attempts to upstage each other and general ill-will. Mostly the Chinese have been on the wrong side of the so-called Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.
Yet, the ritual continued through the decades and changing governments in India. Nehru to P.V. Narasimha Rao to Atal Bihari Vajpayee continued paying lip service to the Panchsheel during bilateral visits.
“Only with coexistence can there be any existence,” declared Indira Gandhi in 1983. The next prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, expressed confidence in 1988 that “the five principles of peaceful coexistence provide the best way to handle relations between nations”. Rao as prime minister declared in 1993 that “these principles remain as valid today as they were when they were drafted”. While Vajpayee too was forced to continue this ritual, he made a significant departure by refusing to falsely credit China for following the Panchsheel. He put extra emphasis on “mutual sensitivity to the concerns of each other” and “respect for equality”.
At a time when Beijing is celebrating six decades of the Panchsheel, it is important to look at a new framework for Sino-Indian relations beyond Panchsheel. Vajpayee laid the foundation for a renewed outlook by emphasising on sensitivity and equality. That can form the basis for the new framework.
The Chinese have a clever way of promoting their superiority and exclusivism. Sinologists describe it as the Middle Kingdom syndrome. While Nehru wanted to take credit for the Panchsheel, Zhou told Richard Nixon in 1973 that “actually, the five principles were put forward by us, and Nehru agreed. But later on he didn’t implement them”. The Chinese also entered into a similar agreement with Myanmar (then Burma) in 1954, thus ensuring that the Panchsheel wasn’t exclusive to their relationship with India.
For the Beijing event, the Chinese government has invited the president of India as well as the president of Myanmar, General Thein Sein, who will be present. Ansari will lead the Indian delegation. Without any malice towards Ansari, one would notice the downgrading of India’s participation in the Beijing event. Beijing was keen on having the president or prime minister at the event. But for once, the South Block mandarins seem to have done their homework, advising the Indian government against sending either of them. Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj too decided to skip the event and chose to visit Dhaka around the same time, sending a rather strong signal.
If Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is expected to visit India in September, decide to depart from the Panchsheel framework and embark on a new relationship, both countries will benefit. Both leaders have that ability. Both enjoy the trust and confidence of their countries. Most importantly, both are seen to be out-of-the-box leaders.
India and China can cooperate with each other on the principles of sovereign equality and mutual sensitivity. China has emerged as an economic superpower, but is exposed to serious internal and external threats. It is facing problems with almost all of its 13 neighbours
The fact that China spends more money on internal security than on external security speaks volumes about its internal vulnerability. So, while India is not as big economically as China, its security apparatus is better-placed.
Modi and Xi can chart a new course in Sino-Indian relations if they are prepared to unshackle themselves from ritualism and symbolism. Both have the ability and the support to do it.

Moving beyond the Panchsheel deception

Moving beyond the Panchsheel deception
The biggest problem in Sino-Indian relations is the utter lack of ingenuity and innovativeness. Six decades after the formal engagement through Panchsheel and five decades after the bloody disengagement due to the 1962 War, leaders of both the countries struggle to come up with new and out-of-the-box answers to the problems plaguing their relationship.
When there are no new ideas, one resorts to symbolism and rituals. These are projected as the great new ideas to kickstart a new relationship. However, there is nothing great or new about them. They are the very same worn out and tried-tested-and-failed actions of the last several decades.
The Panchsheel itself is one ritual that successive Indian governments have unfailingly performed. Vice President Hamid Ansari will be visiting Beijing today to uphold India’s commitment to the ritual. The occasion is the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Panchsheel Agreement.
It was exactly six decades ago, on June 28, 1954, roughly two months after the formal signing of the Panchsheel, that Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai visited India. He and then-prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru had issued a historic statement, reaffirming their commitment to the five principles enshrined in the Panchsheel to “lessen the tensions that exist in the world today and help in creating a climate of peace”.
Contrary to public perception or propaganda, Panchsheel was actually an agreement between the “Tibetan region of China and India” on “trade and intercourse”. It did include five principles, like mutual respect, mutual non-aggression, mutual benefit, peaceful coexistence, etc, but the very title of the agreement was a defeat for India.
The British had, at least from the Simla Accord of 1912 until they left India, not conceded that Tibet was a part of China. Unfortunately, one of the first foreign policy deviations of the Nehru government was the signing of the Panchsheel, wherein India had formally called the Tibetan region as “of China”. Thus the Panchsheel was signed as a treaty of peaceful coexistence over the obituary of Tibetan independence. That was why parliamentarian Acharya Kripalani called the agreement as “born in sin”.
The Panchsheel met its end just three months after its signing, when the Chinese were found violating Indian borders in Ladakh in late-1954. A formal death note was written by Mao Zedong a few months before the 1962 war, when he told Zhou that what India and China should practice is not “peaceful coexistence” but “armed coexistence”. The war followed and ended in humiliation and loss of territory for India. It left behind a massive border dispute that continues to haunt both the countries.
However, this didn’t seem to deter the Indian and, to some extent, the Chinese leadership in continuing with the deception of the Panchsheel. The history of Sino-Indian relations in the last five decades isreplete with instances of violations of sovereignty, mutual animosity, attempts to upstage each other and general ill-will. Mostly the Chinese have been on the wrong side of the so-called Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.
Yet, the ritual continued through the decades and changing governments in India. Nehru to P.V. Narasimha Rao to Atal Bihari Vajpayee continued paying lip service to the Panchsheel during bilateral visits.
“Only with coexistence can there be any existence,” declared Indira Gandhi in 1983. The next prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, expressed confidence in 1988 that “the five principles of peaceful coexistence provide the best way to handle relations between nations”. Rao as prime minister declared in 1993 that “these principles remain as valid today as they were when they were drafted”. While Vajpayee too was forced to continue this ritual, he made a significant departure by refusing to falsely credit China for following the Panchsheel. He put extra emphasis on “mutual sensitivity to the concerns of each other” and “respect for equality”.
At a time when Beijing is celebrating six decades of the Panchsheel, it is important to look at a new framework for Sino-Indian relations beyond Panchsheel. Vajpayee laid the foundation for a renewed outlook by emphasising on sensitivity and equality. That can form the basis for the new framework.
The Chinese have a clever way of promoting their superiority and exclusivism. Sinologists describe it as the Middle Kingdom syndrome. While Nehru wanted to take credit for the Panchsheel, Zhou told Richard Nixon in 1973 that “actually, the five principles were put forward by us, and Nehru agreed. But later on he didn’t implement them”. The Chinese also entered into a similar agreement with Myanmar (then Burma) in 1954, thus ensuring that the Panchsheel wasn’t exclusive to their relationship with India.
For the Beijing event, the Chinese government has invited the president of India as well as the president of Myanmar, General Thein Sein, who will be present. Ansari will lead the Indian delegation. Without any malice towards Ansari, one would notice the downgrading of India’s participation in the Beijing event. Beijing was keen on having the president or prime minister at the event. But for once, the South Block mandarins seem to have done their homework, advising the Indian government against sending either of them. Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj too decided to skip the event and chose to visit Dhaka around the same time, sending a rather strong signal.
If Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is expected to visit India in September, decide to depart from the Panchsheel framework and embark on a new relationship, both countries will benefit. Both leaders have that ability. Both enjoy the trust and confidence of their countries. Most importantly, both are seen to be out-of-the-box leaders.
India and China can cooperate with each other on the principles of sovereign equality and mutual sensitivity. China has emerged as an economic superpower, but is exposed to serious internal and external threats. It is facing problems with almost all of its 13 neighbours
The fact that China spends more money on internal security than on external security speaks volumes about its internal vulnerability. So, while India is not as big economically as China, its security apparatus is better-placed.
Modi and Xi can chart a new course in Sino-Indian relations if they are prepared to unshackle themselves from ritualism and symbolism. Both have the ability and the support to do it.

India’s Intervention on Eradicating Poverty & Achieving Prosperity, within the Earth’s Safe Operating Space, through Sustainable Consumption and Production

An estimated 1.3 billion people, living mostly in South Asia and Sub-Saharan African countries, survive on per capita income of less that US Dollar 1.25 a day. The wide gap between the per capita income of people living in developed and developing countries is stark. Clearly, eradicating poverty and reducing inequality has to be the overarching priority for achieving sustainable development. The development we all are aiming at has to be inclusive, addressing the concerns of the most oppressed, marginalized and poverty ridden people in the world.

One of the most significant outcomes of Rio+ 20 Summit has been to place poverty eradication at the centre of the global development agenda. I quote from paragraph 2 of the outcome document, “The future we want”:



Eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. In this regard we are committed to freeing humanity from poverty and hunger as a matter of urgency.”



It is a matter of great satisfaction that out of various focus areas being considered for developing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the Open Working Group (OWG), established by the UNGA, the first proposed goal relates to ending poverty in all its forms everywhere.



The importance of sustainable consumption and production for sustainable development cannot be overstated. The topic of today’s discussion makes a reference to “..within the earth’s operating space”. This instantly brings to my mind the famous quote of Mahatma Gandhi “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed”.



1.3 billion tons of food produced is wasted every year, amounting to over one-third of all food produced. The wastage of food at consumer level alone in industrialized countries is nearly as much as the total food production in sub-Saharan Africa. Food waste has been often clubbed with the issue of post-harvest losses in developing countries, which is a flawed approach.

There is a wide variation in the per capita energy consumption level in the world. While the world average per capita energy consumption is 1.8 tons of oil equivalent (toe), the corresponding figures for OECD countries and India are 4.28 toe and 0.6 toe respectively.



All this points towards unsustainable and wasteful consumption patterns in developed countries and makes it imperative for them to take lead to shift towards sustainable consumption and production patterns.



The principles of “common but differentiated responsibilities” and “equity” must continue to be the bedrock of the ongoing and future global discourse on sustainable development. Clearly, our efforts to put the global economy on a sustainable path cannot be and must not be on the backs of the poor.



While attaining sustainable production and consumption pattern would result in release of unproductive and wasteful resources which could then be gainfully utilized, it would be simplistic to assume that sustainable production and development by itself would be sufficient to eradicate poverty across the globe. Eradication of poverty requires much more proactive and concerted action.



Sustained and inclusive economic growth is a key enabler for achieving poverty eradication. The developing countries requiring assistance to implement poverty eradication policies and programmes have to be assured of predictable, additional and adequate international financing.



The developed countries need to not only urgently fulfill their commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) as official development assistance (ODA) for developing countries but also pledge additional and predictable funding considering the ambition levels for post- 2015 development agenda. The options for other supplementary modes of financing could be looked at once this basic commitment is met by the developed countries

Ukraine, EU sign historic trade and economic pact

Similar association agreements were signed with two other former Soviet republics, Moldova and Georgia.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on Friday signed up to a trade and economic pact with the European Union, saying it may be the “most important day” for his country since it became independent from the Soviet Union.

It was the decision of his pro—Moscow predecessor, Viktor Yanukovych, to back out of the same EU association agreement in November that touched off massive protests in Ukraine that eventually led to Yanukovych’s flight abroad, Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and the ongoing tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

Later Friday, EU heads of state and government were expected to consider whether to ramp up sanctions against Russia over its conduct toward Ukraine.

Before the signing ceremony, Poroshenko brandished a commemorative pen inscribed with the date of EU’s Vilnius summit where Yanukovych balked at approving the agreement.

“Historic events are unavoidable,” he said.

At Friday’s proceedings, the European Union signed similar association agreements with two other former Soviet republics, Moldova and Georgia.

Businesses in the three countries whose goods and practices meet EU standards will be able to trade freely in any of the EU’s 28 member nations without tariffs or restrictions. Likewise, EU goods and services will be able to sell more easily and cheaply to businesses and consumers in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.

“It’s absolutely a new perspective for my country,” Poroshenko said.

“There is nothing in these agreements or in the European Union’s approach that might harm Russia in any way,” insisted EU President Herman Van Rompuy. But almost immediately, Moscow made clear it was reserving the right to react.

Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for President Vladimir Putin, told Russian news agencies that the Kremlin would respond to the EU—Ukraine accord “as soon as negative consequences arise for the economy.”

But Peskov dismissed the threat of immediate action against Poroshenko’s government. “In order for those (consequences) to arise, the signed agreement needs to be implemented,” he said.

Russia has previously imposed trade embargos against its neighbors in response to political or economic moves that the Kremlin views as unfavorable.

European Commission experts estimate implementation of the deal is expected to boost Ukraine’s national income by around 1.2 billion euros ($1.6 billion) a year. EU Enlargement Commission Stefan Fule said the trade bloc has made clear to Moscow its willingness to demonstrate that Russian economic interests will not be harmed.

Perhaps more important than the trade clauses is an accompanying 10—year plan for Ukraine to adopt EU product regulations. Such rules ease the way for international trade beyond Europe.

The deal also demands that Ukraine change the way it does business. Adopting EU rules on government contracts, competition policy and the copyright for ideas and inventions should improve the economy by making it more investor—friendly and reducing corruption.

Reminding EU leaders of the Ukrainians who died opposed Yanukovych’s government and in the ongoing battle against the pro—Russian insurgency in the country’s east, Poroshenko said Ukraine “paid the highest possible price to make her Europe dreams come true.”

India has over one million out-of-school children, UN report says

 India has more than one million out-of-school children, according to a UN report. The report says global progress towards universal primary education has halted.

The policy paper, jointly released by the Unesco Institute for Statistics and the Education For All Global Monitoring Report, says, "New data show that the world will not fulfil one of the most basic commitments: to get every child in school by 2015."

According to the report, India is among countries like Indonesia, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan and Sudan which face the greatest challenge.

It shows that, as of 2011, India has 1.4 million out-of-school children. The country brought in the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 to make it mandatory for all children between six and 14 years to attend school.

The report also says the problem of children dropping out of school is significant. Sub-Saharan Africa and South and West Asia have the highest rates of early school leaving. "Across these regions, more than one in every three students who started primary school in 2012 will not make it to the last grade," the report said.

In Central, South and West Asia, most out-of-school children would probably never receive any formal education, the report says.

The silver lining is that while India is still in the red, the report puts it among the countries that have shown the way forward by showing rapid progress in reducing the number of out-of-school children in relatively short time. India has reduced its out-of-school population by more than 50% compared to a decade earlier.

The report, however, suggests that universal primary education goes beyond simply enrolling children in school - they must complete their education as well.

"There has been greater progress in improving enrolment rates than in increasing completion rates. This unfinished business must take centre stage in 2015 and beyond," the report says

India, the Netherlands to Strengthen Cooperation in Agriculture

The Dutch Ambassador to India, Mr. Alhponsus Stoelinga called on Union Agriculture Minister Shri Radha Mohan Singh here today to brief him about the current status of Indo Dutch Agriculture cooperation. 

He informed the Minister about the developments in the areas of hi-tech agriculture, dairying, Post harvest management, including cold chain infrastructure.

The Dutch Ambassador expressed the hope that the ongoing dialogue between India and the Netherlands will receive a fresh impetus when the Prime Minister of Holland calls on Prime Minister Modi later this year. The three issues that came up for discussion included a review of the progress under Indo Dutch Agriculture Action plan, the co-operative governance model followed by the Rabo bank and research collaboration with the Wagenengein university of the Netherlands.

The Minister informed the Ambassador that the top priorities of his government included support for marginal and small farmers, comprehensive programme for irrigation, soil health cards, besides promotion of the indigenous breed of cattle and thrust to co-operatives and farmer organizations to achieve economies of scale and scope.