.No leader of the opposition

As the new BJP government completes two months in office, it is quite clear that it does not intend to shift the tone, tenor and substance of politics. Having been elected on a wave of expectations, the BJP has started sending signals that, at least in the field of political conduct, it does not have a game plan to seize the initiative and think differently. The first signal came in the way it dealt with the issue of appointing governors, as this writer argued on these pages (‘If there were no governors’, IE, June 26). The issue of the leader of the opposition (LoP) appears to be another signal. As in the case of the governors, this is not about a few individuals or one person getting some perks. This is about the way institutions are handled. Democratic politics is as much about institutions as it is about mobilisations and winning elections. Having proven its ability in the latter terrain, the BJP seems to be following in the footsteps of its predecessors in disregarding the responsibility to build and strengthen institutions. To ridicule the Congress for not being eligible for the post of LoP is easy and rooted in transient politics. Dealing with the issue in a more mature and farsighted manner can open up space for the institutionalisation of political practice. According to the existing provisions, the Congress does not have the required numbers. But the issue now is whether an alliance can be recognised as a legislative party for the purpose of designating an LoP. Assuming that the leader of the Congress in the House is not entitled to “salaries, perks and cabinet rank” as per the existing legislation, the more complicated issue is whether the various committees that require the LoP to be a member (such as the committee for the appointment of the CVC) can function without her. The BJP is said to be dodging the second issue by contemplating an amendment to the relevant acts. A government that amended the TRAI regulations to suit its convenience could easily revise the LoP act and agree to make the leader of the single largest party or the leader of the largest alliance the LoP. Therefore, the argument that the designation of the LoP requires a specific strength in the House is rather specious. The government appears to be taking refuge in technicalities in trying to deny the Congress leader the position. In the end, it might, with bad grace, agree to make the leader of the largest party/ alliance the LoP, after having tested the patience of the Congress on this issue. It might also want to show the Congress in a poor light bydemonstrating how the party is craving that position. But in the process, the BJP contributes to the demeaning of the office and the larger idea that government and opposition together are responsible for running the affairs of Parliament. In the meanwhile, the Congress has also not done much to deserve being called the leader of the opposition. Instead of strategising how best to become the de facto leader of the opposition, the Congress is seen running from pillar to post (reportedly even considering recourse to the judiciary) to get that recognition. The Congress may take pride in the fact that it has disrupted proceedings in the House somewhat effectively. But whether it can force the government to rethink any matter is a crucial test. Besides, whether a parliamentary victory was won by voice power or the power of argument will, in the long run, determine whether the Congress wants to do justice to procedural decorum or just make its presence felt. It would do well to revisit the remarks made by the speakers of the 14th and 15th Lok Sabhas on the issue of decorum and the obligations of parliamentarians. This Lok Sabha is quite different from the Houses where the BJP was a large opposition party around which the NDA was woven. The Congress is not only weak, but also isolated. The so-called UPA has become almost fictitious. Other major parties in the opposition, such as the TMC, AIADMK and BJD, are not only outside the Congress-led coalition, but also the main opponents of the Congress in their respective states. This has put the Congress in a tricky position where it has to coordinate with its opponents. It will require floor management, which the Congress was weak in even when in power. More than that, it will require a flexibility of approach and a readiness to build broad-based coalitions. This is exactly what the Congress lacks. The 16th Lok Sabha has at least four major players in the opposition: the TMC, AIADMK, BJD and Congress. All of them are currently in power in some state or the other and so have to manage their state’s interests. Therefore, structurally, there is very narrow room for a concerted opposition to the NDA. Besides, barring the Congress, the state-based parties have limited interest in opposing the BJP — they would be willing to do business with it almost any time and, as such, might not be “in opposition” to the government. So the Congress will not only have to take the initiative, but also tread cautiously to ensure broader and more durable opposition to the government. Such an initiative can take shape only if the Congress chooses to oppose the government on two broad principles — democratic propriety and procedure on one hand, and states’ rights on the other. Both these platforms can be acceptable to the other parties in the opposition and help the Congress gain sympathetic public opinion. The experience so far, not only in the last two months butalso during NDA rule from 1998 to 2004, is that the Congress is clueless when in opposition. Perhaps long years in government have robbed the party of the skills of an opposition. Even in the states where it has been in opposition, its performance has been dismal. Therefore, the demand that its leader be recognised as LoP is rather pathetic — a party should be recognised as the opposition on the strength of its policies, its leadership and the confidence it inspires as an alternative, not just on the basis of legal provisions and the generosity of the ruling party. When either the ruling party or the opposition is unconcerned with institutionalising political practices, it is bad enough, when both show the same symptoms, it underscores the bankruptcy of the political 

Allies and liability,COALITION GOVT

Whatever one might say about the timing, motives or ramifications of Justice Markandey Katju’s sensational disclosure, nobody has yet been able to disprove the facts about the undue extensions given to a “tainted” additional judge of the Madras High Court because of the DMK’s threat to pull out of the UPA government and thus bring it down. My submission is that this was not the only gross impropriety committed in the name of coalition compulsions. At the time when the Congress’s main ally, the Left, was objecting to the government’s proposal to partially privatise several public sector undertakings, for instance, some DMK ministers reportedly barged into the prime minister’s office to warn him that selling any shares of the Neyveli lignite project would bring his government down.

Since public memory is proverbially short, let me remind the reader that when the single-party rule of the Congress ended and the coalition era began, a large proportion of the political class, including pundits and commentators, virtually jumped with joy. At long last, they said, the country will have “real democracy” and those excluded from politics for so long would be empowered. However sincere the belief, reality did not redeem it.

To begin the story from the beginning, it is not clear when exactly the coalition era began. Arguably, it was after the humiliating defeat of Indira Gandhi in the post-Emergency election in 1977. For even though the Janata Party pretended to be a single political entity, it was, in fact, a coalition of four parties, united only in their abhorrence of the Congress and divided over almost everything else. In any case, the Janata collapsed ignominiously in 30 months. Indira spectacularly returned to power. She, and after her assassination, her elder son Rajiv, who was practically dragooned into politics, ruled the country for a decade.

His former cabinet colleague and nemesis, V.P. Singh, replaced Rajiv. Singh headed what he called the National Front, but turned out to be a notional front. In any case, the front’s strength was so limited that it needed the support of two opposite poles of the political spectrum, the BJP and the Communists, to survive. Within 11 months, however, Singh’s government fell because of his unilateral decision to enforce the Mandal report recommending 27 per cent reservations for OBCs. With Rajiv’s patronage, the former Young Turk, Chandra Shekhar, became prime minister but lasted only 120 days.

After Rajiv’s assassination in the midst of the 1991 general election, P.V. Narasimha Rao ran a minority Congress government for the full five years, though the means he used made him the first former PM to be dragged to a court of law on criminal charges. No wonder, the Congress was defeated in the 1996 polls (though it retained140 seats in the Lok Sabha). For the first time, the BJP became the largest party in the House, but Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s first government became a 13-day wonder. A new government of the so-called United Front, headed by H.D. Deve Gowda, was then sworn in. It, too, could not have survived even for a day without the Congress’s support “from outside”. The then Congress president, Sitaram Kesri, for reasons of his own, pulled the plug on Gowda but let the UF rule under the leadership of I.K. Gujral. Another group of Congressmen pulled the rug from under Gujral’s feet because he would not expel the DMK from his government, which the Congress suspected was complicit in Rajiv’s assassination. (Ironically, it later became a close ally of the Congress.)

In the general election in 1998, the BJP came to power by heading the NDA, with Vajpayee again as prime minister. But this government fell, for want of a single vote in the Lok Sabha, only a few days after celebrating its first anniversary. Why? Because J. Jayalalithaa of the AIADMK withdrew her support since the BJP-led government could not or would not withdraw the court cases filed against her by the state government led by her bitterest foe, M. Karunanidhi. The country had to endure another election before which the BJP, as a caretaker government, fought the Kargil war. This time round, it won with a comfortable majority.

It is to Sonia Gandhi’s credit that in the 2004 polls, she led the Congress back to power even though the BJP was so confident of its future that it had advanced the election by some months. By then, the Congress had been in the wilderness for eight years, and the dynasty for 13.

In all fairness, the coalition era in India began in 1999 and ended, for the foreseeable future at least, in May this year, when the BJP won a clear majority on its own and a dominant one with its allies.

What Jayalalithaa did to the first NDA coalition has already been mentioned. Under pressure from other allies, Vajpayee had to put on the back burner some of the prime elements in his party’s programme. Some allies walked out of his government. However, overall, he seems to have managed his coalition better than the diarchy of Sonia and Manmohan Singh did or could during the decade they ran the ruling coalition, the UPA. Vajpayee usually spoke of “coalition dharma”, Manmohan of the “compulsions of coalition politics”.

Addressing vulnerabilities,HDR-2014

The 2014 Human Development Report (HDR) draws attention to the urgent need to address human vulnerabilities and build resilience as conditions for accelerating and sustaining progress. Human insecurity stems from not only low and uncertain incomes, but from many other sources, including inadequate access to health, food and shelter, unsafe environments, and inadequate protection of civil and political freedoms. Individuals experience vulnerability when they become physically weak, economically impoverished, socially dependent, publicly humiliated or psychologically harmed. Families feel vulnerable when they do not have access to good quality affordable healthcare, when they are exposed to unsafe environments, or when safety is compromised when societies are faced with crime and violence. At the same time, all new born babies are vulnerable to diseases, just as all women are to domestic violence. Preparing citizens for a less vulnerable future entails strengthening the intrinsic resilience of communities and countries. The HDR recommends how to do this.

The report connects human vulnerability to factors and conditions that erode people’s capabilities and freedoms. The concept of vulnerability becomes less abstract, the report argues, when broken down into who is vulnerable, what are they vulnerable to, and why.  People feel vulnerable when they lack core capabilities that prevent them from doing things they value and in coping with threats they face without suffering serious consequences.

The report identifies “structurally vulnerable” groups of people that are more vulnerable than others by virtue of their history or of their unequal treatment by the rest of society. Such a disadvantage can be traced to many factors, including gender, ethnicity and geographic location. Human insecurity is compounded by the overlapping of structural vulnerabilities. For example, this could happen to groups that, in addition to having to cope with disabilities, are also poor and belong to a minority group.

The report has an interesting discussion on “life-cycle vulnerabilities” that are contingent upon a person’s age, and hence, stage in life. For example, new born babies are particularly vulnerable during the first 1,000 days of life, older children during the transition from school to work, and adults when they move from the world of work to an era of retirement. Since capabilities are built over a lifetime, the report argues that setbacks at these critical points in a person’s life can have adverse and prolonged impacts. For instance, neglecting childhood development has serious ramifications for learning in school, holding on to a job and coping with growing old. Such neglect also transmits vulnerabilities to the next generation.

The HDRs have gained popularity because of the ranking of countries on the Human Development Index (HDI). What does the 2014 HDR reveal? The not-so-good news is that there has been no change in India’s rank on the HDI. As in 2012, India continues to rank 135out of 186 countries for which the index has been computed. In South Asia, whereas Sri Lanka (ranked 73) and the Maldives (ranked 103) fare better, India does marginally better than Bhutan (ranked 136) and Bangladesh (ranked 142), and much better than Nepal (ranked 145), Pakistan (ranked 146) and Afghanistan (ranked 169).

India fares badly on gender equality and ranks 127 on the Gender Development Index (GDI) — a new measure of gender gaps in levels of human development achievements for 148 countries. Countries are ranked based on the absolute deviation from gender parity on the HDI. This means countries are penalised not only for gaps that disfavour women, but also for those that disfavour men. The largest gender gap in HDI is observed in South Asia (17 per cent), followed by Arab states and sub-Saharan Africa, with a gap of about 13 per cent each. The most unequal is Afghanistan, where the HDI for females is only 60 per cent of the male HDI.

Four other findings merit attention. First, the top five countries leading the HDI ranking are Norway, Australia, Switzerland, Netherlands and the United States — the same as in 2012. Similarly, as in 2012, the lowest scores in HDI are Niger, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic and Sierra Leone. For the first time, Japan no longer ranks first on the HDI among Asian countries. Three countries have done better: Singapore, Hong Kong and, importantly, South Korea. Second, levels in human development continue to rise, though the pace has slowed for all regions over 2008-13 compared to 2000-08. Third, inequalities in health are decreasing, those in education remain persistently high, and income inequality continues to grow particularly in developing countries. Four, computation of the Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index (MPI) reveals that, despite recent progress in poverty reduction, more than 2.2 billion people are either near or living in multidimensional poverty. It is however unfortunate that the Indian government’s reluctance and subsequent delay in commissioning the fourth round of the National Family Health Survey has meant that data used for computation of the MPI is seriously outdated (pertains to 2005-06).

Returning to the main theme, the report contains a set of practical recommendations for addressing vulnerabilities and building resilience to future shocks. It advocates embracing the principles of equity and universalism, putting people first, and investing in strengthening collective voice and action. The HDR calls for reinforcing universal access to basic social services, especially health and education, introducing well-designed interventions to address life-cycle vulnerabilities (focusing on early childhood and the transitions from youth to young adulthood and from adulthood to old age), and strengthening social protection (including unemployment insurance and pension programmes). The report highlights the need to build capacities for disaster preparedness and recovery so that communities can better deal with and recover from shocks. At the macro level, it rightly calls for a commitment to full employment (rather than targets of economic growth), recognising that the value of employment extends far beyond the income it generates. Thereport’s main takeaway is that unless vulnerabilities are addressed immediately and effectively, and efforts are made to ensure that every member of society benefits from investments in human development, human progress can be neither equitable nor sustainable. This is indeed a timely and important message — not just for India but for all nations of the world.

Prime Minister launches MyGov: A platform for Citizen Engagement towards Surajya http://mygov.nic.in

Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi today launched MyGov, a platform that empowers the citizens of India to contribute towards Surajya. Speaking on the occasion, which also marked the completion of sixty days of the new Government, the Prime Minister said the success of democracy is impossible without participation of the people. Stating that in the past, there used to be a big gap between the people and the processes of governance, the Prime Minister said that in the past sixty days, the experience of his Government was that there were many people who wanted to contribute towards nation-building, and devote their time and energy. The only thing they required was an opportunity to shine and showcase their contribution. The Prime Minister said the MyGov platform is a technology-driven medium that would provide this opportunity to contribute towards good governance. The Prime Minister expressed confidence that the people would welcome this initiative. He also invited suggestions to strengthen and improve the platform. He hoped that everyone would join hands through this platform to take the country forward, and to meet the aspirations of the poorest of the poor. He said he was confident of success in this mission, because he recognized the strength and capability of 125 crore Indians. The Prime Minister said he looked forward to receiving the suggestions, views and ideas of the people. The platform - MyGov - presents an opportunity to the citizens to both ‘Discuss’ and ‘Do.’ There are multiple theme-based discussions on MyGov where a wide range of people would share their thoughts and ideas. Further, any idea shared by a contributor will also be discussed on these discussion forums, allowing constructive feedback and interaction. For those who wish to go beyond discussions and wish to contribute on the ground, MyGov offers several avenues to do so. Citizens can volunteer for various tasks and submit their entries. These tasks would then be reviewed by other members and experts. Once approved, these tasks can be shared by those who complete the task and by other members on MyGov. Every approved task would earn credit points for completing the task. National Informatics Centre (NIC), Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) would implement and manage the platform “MyGov” which would facilitate Citizen Engagement in Good Governance. Groups and corners are an important part of MyGov. The platform has been divided into various groups namely Clean Ganga, Girl Child Education, Clean India, Skilled India, Digital India, Job Creation. Each group consists of online and onground tasks that can be taken up by the contributors. The objective of each group is to bring about a qualitative change in that sphere through people’s participation. The Minister for Communication and IT, Law and Justice, Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad, and senior officers of the Government of India were present at the launch of the platform. Road Ahead The inauguration of MyGov is a small step towards the larger mission of becoming a one stop centre for citizen engagement towards good governance. Over time the number of groups, tasks and discussions will increase. MyGov would also be used as a comprehensive knowledge repository, giving insights from the sharpest and brightest minds across India.

Ban of Endosulfan

The study done by ICMR’s National Institute of Occupational Health in 2002 showed significantly higher prevalence of neurobehavioral disorders, congenital malformations in female subject and abnormalities related to male reproductive system. Another study conducted by Calicut Medical College in Nov-Dec 2010 in the same area showed reproductive morbidity, sexual maturity congenital anomalies and cancer in younger ages. Infertility in the women 30 years and older was significantly higher but amongst younger age group (20-29) infertility was comparable with the unsprayed area indicating that the probable effect of Endosulfan is gradually coming down. State Government of Kerala has sent a proposal amounting toRs. 448.258 crores for relief and rehabilitation of Endosulfan victims in Kasargod district of Kerala. Based on Programme Implementation Proposals received from the State under the National Rural Health Mission (Now NHM), support has been provided to the State within their resource envelope. Government has sanctioned Rs. 10.88 crore for health facilities in Kasargod district during the period 2012-13 to 2014-15(till date). The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an ad-interim order on 13.05.2011 banning production, sale and use of Endosulfan in the country till further orders. Accordingly, the Central Government issued instructions on 14.05.2011 to all State Governments/Union Territory Administrations to implement the interim order of the Court in toto, which are binding on all manufacturers. The Secretariat of Central Insecticides Board & Registration Committee has written to the Pesticide Associations to recall Certificates of Registration for Endosulfan. These certificates have been treated as withdrawn in compliance of Supreme Court’s directions. On the basis of the interim report of the Joint Expert Committee on Endosulfan, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 30-09-2011and 13.12.2011 allowed export of existing stocks of Endosulfan Technical to the tune of 1090.596 MT and formulation 2698.056 KL which was manufactured prior to the banning of Endosulfan by Supreme Court vide its order dated 13.5.2011. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Order dated 23-04-2012 directed the Union of India to file a report on the disposal/phase out of Endosulfan Technical, Endosulfan Formulation and its raw material viz., HCCP available with manufacturers, States & formulators. Accordingly, a report was submitted by Ministry of Agriculture on 12-07-2012 on the manner of disposal of Endosulfan& HCCP stock available with manufacturers, States, formulators.

National Skill Development Agency (NSDA)

The National Skill Development Agency (NSDA) was notified on 6 June 2013 and has been functional ever since. The NSDA is an autonomous body, with functions which inter alia include  taking all possible steps to meet skilling targets as envisaged in the 12th Five Year Plan and beyond; coordinating and harmonizing the approach to skill development in the country; anchoring and operationalizing the National Skills Qualification Framework to ensure that quality and standards meet sector specific requirements; being the nodal agency for State Skill Development Missions; evaluating existing skill development schemes with a view to assessing their efficacy and suggesting corrective action to make them more effective; creating and maintaining a national database relating to skill development including development of a dynamic labour market information system; and ensuring that the skilling needs of the disadvantaged and the marginalized groups like SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, women and differently abled persons are taken care of. NSDA is an agency that is mandated to coordinate the skilling effort of the Government of India. It is not mandated to skill a targeted number of people.  However, as per details provided by NSDA, the Ministry-wise physical achievements made during 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 are given in Annexure. C&AG of India Takes Over as Member of UN Board of Auditors  The Comptroller & Auditor General of India today assumed office as Member of the United Nations Board of Auditors for a six year term upto June 2020. Shri Shashi Kant Sharma took over the charge of this prestigious position from Mr. Liu Jiayi, the Auditor General of the People’s Republic of China at the United Nations Headquarters at New York today. Shri Sharma was elected to this position defeating Philippines by a convincing margin of 62 votes in November 2013.    United Nations Board of Auditors The United Nations General Assembly established the United Nations Board of Auditors to audit the accounts of the United Nations Organization and its funds and programmes and to report its findings and recommendations to the UN General Assembly. For this, the Assembly appoints three members, each of whom must be the Auditor-General of a Member State. Other two members of the Board are Mr. Amyas Morse, Comptroller and Auditor General, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Mr. Ludovick Utouh, Controller and Auditor-General of United Republic of Tanzania. CAG’s international audit experience The CAG of India has been the external auditor of various international organizations.    Presently, besides being a Member of the UN Board of Auditors, he is the external auditor of the World Food Programme, World Intellectual Property Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, UN World Tourism Organization and the International Organization for Migration.  In recent past, he has been the external auditor of major UN Agencies like the World Health Organization, Food and Agricultural Organization, International Maritime Organization, Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons etc. Benefits for India The UN Board of Auditors is one of the key oversight organs of the United Nations and its importance has grown in recent years, especially in view of the resource crunch being faced by all Member Nations in the wake of economic crisis.  The reports of the Board form a key input in policy-making within the UN system.  The election of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to the UN Board of Auditors is a matter of prestige for the country and would greatly enhance the visibility of India within the UN system. Unlike most elections in the UN and its Agencies, this election was a rare case where an institution was involved.  With the election of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India as a member of the UN Board of Auditors, one of the most prestigious institutions of Indian democracy got its due recognition at the international stage and image of the country has enhanced in terms of its democratic traditions. CAG of India will now get access for audit of UN Organizations, the prominent one being the UN Headquarters itself. By auditing international organizations of the UN system, not only would the Comptroller and Auditor General of India add value to the operations of UN, but its own officers would also be further exposed to the best international auditing and accounting practices leading to enhancement of their professional skills.  Deploying of such professionals in India would translate into high quality of auditing and accounting and would promote accountability, transparency and good governance in India. Benefits for United Nations With their wide experience in the audit of UN and its Agencies and other International Organizations, the auditors of the CAG of India would assist the UN in bringing about greater efficiency, economy and effectiveness in its operations by focussing their audit thrust on key risk areas within the UN. Presently, the United Nations is in the process of business process transformation by way of migrating to International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) for financial reporting and introduction of a SAP based Enterprise Resource Planning solution. C&AG of India has a pool of audit professionals specialising in IPSAS, who have assisted World Health Organization (WHO), International Maritime Organization (IMO) and International Organization for Migration (IOM) in their on-going migration to an IPSAS compliant financial accounting system. Similarly, C&AG of India is known for its expertise in the audit of IT systems. India’s twin strengths in IPSAS and auditing ERP systems would bring immense value to the United Nations in its ongoing migration to IPSAS and implementation of its SAP system, UMOJA. Comptroller and Auditor General’s Credentials The Institution of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has a history of over one hundred and fifty years and is regarded as one of the key pillars of India’s democratic polity.  It is one of the largest Supreme Audit Institutions in the world, with a large human resource pool which is professionally qualified in diverse fields. Highly regarded in the international community of Supreme Audit Institutions, the CAG of India chairs the Knowledge Sharing Committee - one of the four major Committees of International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) besides being a member of a number of other standards setting committees/sub-committees. He is on the Governing Board of INTOSAI.  He is member of the UN Panel of External Auditors. The CAG also chairs the Asian Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (ASOSAI). By virtue of his active participation in these international forums, the CAG is closely associated with activities in establishing standards, best practices and guidance in different areas of audit for use by the SAI community at large.

Knowing India’s nuclear credentials

Manufactured Western outrage ignores the reality that under the landmark 2005 India-U.S. agreement, the IAEA has unprecedented access to Indian nuclear facilities

There has been a concerted attack on India from the usual suspects in recent days even as it was entering into negotiations to formally accede to the Nuclear Suppliers Group. As if on cue, Jane’s Intelligence Review carried out a “(non)-exposé” of an Indian military nuclear facility in Karnataka. As exposés go, it was lame even by Jane’s standards. The nature of the facility and location have been publicly available since 2010. Yet, this new “exposé” was carried by all mainstream print news outlets and predictably sensationalised with everyone feigning alarm and anxiety. This manufactured outrage culminated with a sanctimonious editorial in The New York Times that was remarkable for the sheer incoherence of its own arguments. As the designated chief of the non-proliferation ayatollahs (with blinkers) and representative of a motley anti-India group in the U.S. that is shrinking ever so rapidly, this too was on expected lines.

Assault on credentials

Nevertheless, it is important to dismantle the uneasy arguments of this concerted assault on India’s credentials. The first proposition that must be taken issue with is the propagation of a falsehood that Pakistan and its reckless build-up of nuclear stockpile is somehow driven by India’s posture. While Pakistan’s careless impulse may be a result of more than one central factor, it is important to understand that this may have a lot to do with its suspicion of American intentions. The oft-quoted argument is that Pakistan seeks to equalise the conventional mismatch with India through a misguided reliance on numbers of strategic and tactical warheads. The irrationality and illogic of this behaviour has been proven by the fact that a country like North Korea has deterred both the U.S. and South Korea with explosions that may not even have been nuclear. Pakistan’s vertical proliferation has no mooring to India’s strategic programme — only to its own paranoia. The question is what fuels this? There is no denying the fact that Pakistan was able to obtain “nuclear immunity” for its sub-conventional activities against India with even 10 warheads. It may well be the fear of the U.S. that motivates its build-up today.

 New Delhi is already providing support to FMCT negotiation; its signature on the CTBT is linked to similar commitments by the U.S. and China 

One motivator is the pressure the U.S. has been applying on Pakistan (without success due to the China factor) to sign onto the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), which will forever cap the Pakistani arsenal. Contrary to what the commentary would have us believe, the FMCT, instead of curbing fissile material, has demonstrably accelerated Pakistan’s programme. So much for flawed logic. The second is the fear of the American “Plan B”, which involves the seizure and confiscation of much of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. The former has driven Pakistan to enrich their extant stockpile of radioactive material to weapons grade at breakneck speed. The latter has ensured that Pakistan is rapidly weaponising its fissile stock, in order to disperse and complicate any such weapons seizure plans. These facts are well understood in Washington policy circles. The exposés and op-eds of the past weeks are for most just another edition of Aesop’s fables.

The second issue has to be the demonstrated lack of understanding of the reality that shaped the landmark civil nuclear agreement between the U.S. and India. This nuclear deal was based on one clear principle — that India’s military programme would irrevocably be separated from the civilian programme. This was not an optimal solution for India or for the P5, but like all international agreements it was based on arriving at an outcome that would benefit all parties and enhance the global order. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohammed El Baradei in an op-ed in the Washington Post, specifically welcomed the deal without reservation, his rationale being “either we begin finding creative, outside-the-box solutions or the international nuclear safeguards regime will become obsolete.” This is now accepted wisdom. The IAEA has gained unprecedented access to India’s nuclear facilities. India has accepted additional protocols this June, and has strengthened its own export laws. Significantly, the same journals and reports confirm that India’s own arsenal has remained stable over the period with no increases despite the turbulence in the neighbourhood. The benefits of bringing India inside the ‘non-proliferation tent’ are therefore vast, visible and tangible.

While these editorials and reports may very well have got their facts and numbers right, the analysis is so convoluted that the facts they quote cease to be relevant. The argument goes that India needs to sign the FMCT, the CTBT, and agree to mutual weapons reduction with China and Pakistan, since it is the nuclear deal with the U.S. that has set the cat amongst the pigeons. Here then is some measure of reality. India is already providing active support to the FMCT negotiations — it is a work in progress, not yet a concrete treaty. It has been Pakistan that has been blocking the work at the conference on disarmaments negotiations.

Additionally, India’s signature on the CTBT is explicitly linked to a similar U.S. and Chinese commitment. As long as they do not ratify these two treaties, India has a voluntary unilateral moratorium on testing. What is holding up Indian accession is U.S. and Chinese accession.

Experts in Beijing claim that China’s expansion and modernisation of its nuclear forces is being driven by the ill-advised and deeply destabilising withdrawal of the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. This has nothing whatsoever to do with India.

India, therefore, is first being made the whipping boy for the failure of the American non-proliferation lobby in their own country and then it has to accept blame for the complex relations the U.S. shares with Pakistan and China that is driving these Asian allies to increase their arsenals. Can we get real, please?