Needed: Dialogue, statesmanship

Because we cannot risk another judicial decision on appointments, writes FALI S. NARIMAN.

In the Constitution of India, 1950, the appointing authority for judges in the higher judiciary is the government of India, acting in the name of the president of India. Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed after consultation with the chief justice of India (CJI) and other judges of the Supreme Court (or high courts) as the appointing authority deems necessary for the purpose; judges of high courts are appointed after consultation with the CJI, the governor of the concerned state and the chief justice of the concerned high court. This simply worded prescription — expressed in Articles 124(2) and 217(1) — worked well in practice for the first two decades. By convention, whosoever the CJI recommended as judge was, almost invariably, appointed; whom the CJI did not recommend was not appointed.

But in 1981, in the S.P. Gupta case, much later known as the “first judge’s case”, a bench of seven judges of the Supreme Court presided over by Justice P.N. Bhagwati held (4:3) that the recommendations of the CJI for judges to be appointed in the higher judiciary were, constitutionally, not binding on the government of India. The (Congress) government, then in office, was delighted. It was now payback time. So when Bhagwati assumed office as CJI, the Congress government, still in office, declined to appoint judges recommended by him, since it was he who had judicially declared (in the S.P. Gupta case) that “consultation” in Article 124 did not mean “concurrence”.

It was much later, with the accumulated experience of the deleterious consequences flowing from the majority judgment in the first judges case, that new faces on the bench decided to take a “fresh look” at Article 124(2). In what has now become known as the “second judges case” (1993), a bench of nine judges held (by a majority, 7:2) that a collegiate opinion of a collectivity of judges was to be preferred to the opinion of the CJI. It also said that if the government did not accept the “recommendation” of the “collegium” (then consisting of the three senior-most judges), it would be presumed that the government had not acted bona fide.

Even after the judgment in the second judges case, recommendations made by the collegium were not made in the spirit in which the new doctrine had been propounded, since the collegiate of the three highest constitutional functionaries (the senior-most judges of the court) could not see eye to eye in the matter of appointment ofjudges to the higher judiciary. So when (again, by convention) the then senior-most judge, Justice M.M. Punchhi, became the CJI in January 1998 and recommended, with the concurrence of his two senior-most colleagues, that a particular list of five named persons be appointed to fill the vacancies in the highest court (all strictly in accordance with the methodology laid down in the second judges case), the government took exception to some of the names — justifiably, according to disinterested and knowledgeable persons.

But the CJI was adamant. When the government said that some of the names suggested could be accepted, but not all, the CJI said: “It will be all or none.” Apprehending the initiation of contempt proceedings, the government of the day (the NDA government with the BJP in the driving seat) thought it expedient to seek a presidential reference under Article 143 of the Constitution for the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on certain dicta expressed in the second judges case.

All that ultimately happened after the presidential reference was that the collegiate was enlarged (by judicial diktat) from three to five of the senior-most justices, perhaps on the principle that there was greater safety in larger numbers. Meanwhile, Chief Justice Punchhi demitted office since he had reached the constitutional age of retirement. His successor, along with the four senior-most justices in the collegium, recommended names of appointees, which were accepted. This shows (it is said) that the collegium system worked. The response of lawyers has been, “Yes, but not always in this manner.”

The truth is that the system of recommendation for judicial appointments by a collegium of the five senior-most judges (like that of the three that went before) is not institutionalised: no mechanism is prescribed (by the collegium itself), no office is set up, no data gathered in advance, no criteria evolved as to who among the high court judges — all aspirants to a place in the Supreme Court — should be recommended. There is no reason given as to why a broad consensus among all the justices of the Supreme Court is not to be preferred to the views only of the five senior-most.

The entire system operates ad hoc, based on no principle. And the choice of judges to be recommended has varied in quality with the collegium’s fast-changing composition. The system has failed, according to me and many others. But in the opinion of the judges, including a succession of chief justices of India, it has not. More importantly, the BJP government that is now in office had, as part of the NDA government in 1998, categorically informed the nine-judge bench hearing the presidential reference that it was not seeking a review of the judgment in the second judges case — the judgment that first initiated the novel idea of a “collegium” of senior-most judges.

In this situation, what would be the right thing to do? I believe that before embarking on the new experiment of a broad-based National Judicial Commission, even one loaded witha majority of sitting judges as members, it is imperative that there should be meaningful dialogue between the executive and the collectivity of all the judges of the Supreme Court (represented by its chief justice), so that a mutually acceptable solution can be found. It must be found. Statesmanship is the need of the hour, because we cannot risk another judicial decision. The executive, the judges and the lawyers must resolve to avoid, at all cost, a fourth judges case.

strengthening of Primary Healthcare

The strengthening of primary health care is essential for achieving MDG aimed at reducing child mortality as most of the deaths in children are preventable. The various strategies to achieve MDG goal related to child morality are as below: (i) Operationalizing Community Health Centres as First Referral Units (FRUs) and Primary Health Centres (24X7) for round the clock maternal and newborn care services. (ii) Promotion of Institutional Delivery through JananiSurakshaYojana (JSY) and JananiShishuSurakshaKaryakram (JSSK): Promoting Institutional delivery to ensure skilled birth attendance is key to reducing both maternal and neo-natal mortality. (iii) Strengthening Facility based newborn care: Newborn care corners (NBCC) are being set up at all health facilities where deliveries take place; Special New Born Care Units (SNCUs) and New Born Stabilization Units (NBSUs) are also being set up at appropriate facilities for the care of sick newborn including preterm babies. (iv) Home Based New-born Care (HBNC): Home based newborn care through ASHA has been initiated to improve new born practices at the community level and early detection and referral of sick new born babies. (v) Capacity building of health-care providers: Various trainings are being conducted under National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) to build and upgrade the skills of health care providers in essential newborn care, care of sick child with pneumonia, diarrhoea, malnutrition including care of mothers during pregnancy and delivery. (vi) Establishment of nutritional rehabilitation centres for management of severe acute malnourished children with medical complications. (vii) Introduction of Rashtriya Kishore SwasthyaKaryakram (RKSK) to reach adolescent population in their home spaces and introducing peer led intervention at the community level supported by augmentation of facility based services. (viii) Introduction of RashtriyaBalSwasthyaKaryakram for (RBSK) for screening of all the children upto 18 years of age for defects, deficiencies, development delays and specific diseases. The programme also provides early interventions services and management of children needing surgical intervention at tertiary level facilities. (ix) Prevention and treatment of Anaemia by supplementation with Iron and Folic Acid tablets to adolescent, pregnant and lactating women and children. (x) Strengthening of Universal immunization programme (UIP) for reducing vaccine preventable diseases. (xi) Name Based Tracking of Pregnant Women and children to ensure complete antenatal, intra-natal and postnatal care and immunization services.

India and Japan agree to further strengthen Cooperation in Education

Mr. Hakuban Shimomura, the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan met the Minister for Human Resource Development, Smt. Smriti Irani here today. Smt. Smriti Irani appreciated Japan for their advancement in education as well as in technology, and appreciated the assistance of Government of Japan for the development of the new IIT in Hyderabad and the Pandit Dwarka Prasad Mishra Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing (IIITDM) in Jabalpur. She also proposed that India and Japan could cooperate for the sharing of knowledge resources through the National e-library initiative of the Indian Government and also in India’s Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Two Letters of Intent towards establishing academic cooperation between Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) and Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) with the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) were also signed during the meeting for the advancement of academic cooperation in the fields of humanities and social sciences between Indian and Japanese Researchers The Japanese Minister also invited the Indian Minister for the UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development to be held at Aichi-Nagoya, Japan during 10-12 November, 2014.

Shripad Yesso Naik launches 60th Anniversary Celebrations of Lalit Kala Akademi

Minister of Culture and Tourism Shri Shripad Yesso Naik here today inaugurated the year long celebrations to mark the 60th anniversary of Lalit Kala Akademi. Lalit Kala Akademi, National Academy of Art, New Delhi, was set up by the Government of India as an autonomous body, on 5 August 1954. It is the Indian Government’s apex cultural body in the field of visual arts in India. The structure of the Akademi consists of a General Council that comprises artists, art critics, architects, photographers, experts in folk, tribal and traditional arts, art administrators and representatives of various government organizations. The festivities commenced with an exhibition of works of art selected from the collection of the Akademi that show how artists have been viewing India in their own perspective. The Installation ‘Secret Life of Memories’ consisting of photographic prints, videos and sounds of the cultural lineages of Tibet and Sikkim as well as some re-enactment of Kalimpong Tibetan Opera is also organised at Kaustubh Auditorium of the Lalit Kala Akademi. The Installation has been conceived by Mr. Arghya Basu and Rajula Shah. Shri Krishen Khanna, one of the senior most artists of the country and Shri Ravindra Singh, Secretary, Ministry of Culture were the Guests of Honour on the occasion. The inaugural function was followed by a musical concert by Abhay Rustum Sopori. The compositions which he presented were based on classical Ragas and took the listeners on a journey of India. Mahua Mukherjee and her troupe performed ‘Gaudiya Nritya’, a classical dance from Bengal as a part of the celebrations. The festivities will be continuing for the next couple of days with a dance performance titled ‘Nrutya Vitana’ visualised by Dr. Dinanath Pathy and choreographed by Meera Das. The performance discusses the inter-connectivity of various visual art forms. On 7th August, 2014, Dr. R.S. Nanda Kumar and his troupe will be presenting a dance performance titled ‘Rasonmeelana’ which will be an interpretation of the ideas of rasa in Indian poetics.

Statement by Nirmala Sitharaman in Lok Sabha Regarding "India's Stand in the WTO"

1. I am making this intervention in the House today in order to place before the Hon`ble Members the facts relating to the stand taken by India in the World Trade Organization (WTO) recently. 2. The Bali Ministerial Declaration was adopted on 7 December 2013 on conclusion of the Ninth Ministerial Conference of the WTO in Bali. Ministerial Decisions were adopted on ten issues relating to the Doha Development Agenda which is the agenda for the unfinished Doha Round of trade negotiations, underway in the WTO since 2001. 3. Amongst these Ministerial Decisions, two are of particular significance — the Ministerial Decision for an Agreement on Trade Facilitation and the Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. 4. The Trade Facilitation Agreement is basically aimed at greater transparency and simplification of customs procedures, use of electronic payments and risk management techniques and faster clearances at ports. We have autonomously taken several similar measures such as the `Indian Customs Single Window Project` announced in the Budget 2014-15 to facilitate trade, under which importers and exporters will be able to lodge documents at a single point, reducing interface with Governmental agencies, dwell time and the cost of doing business. 5. The Protocol of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) was to be adopted by 31 July 2014 by the WTO. After this the Agreement would automatically come into force from 31 July 2015 if ratified by two-thirds of the members of the WTO. 6. In contrast to their efforts on Trade Facilitation in the WTO, some developed countries have been reluctant to engage on other issues. 7. Seeing the resistance to taking forward the other Decisions, the apprehension of developing countries was that once the process of bringing the Trade Facilitation Agreement into force was completed, other issues would be ignored, including the important issue of a permanent solution on subsidies on account of public stockholding for food security purposes. 8. India, therefore, took the stand that till there is an assurance of commitment to find a permanent solution on public stockholding and on all other Bali deliverables, including those for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), it would be difficult to join the consensus on the Protocol of Amendment for the Trade Facilitation Agreement. 9. Without a permanent solution, public stockholding programmes in India and other developing countries will be hampered by the present ceiling on domestic support which is pegged at 10 per cent of the value of production and is wrongly considered as trade-distorting subsidy to farmers under existing WTO rules. The existence of such a subsidy element is determined by comparing present day administered prices with fixed reference prices of the 1986-88 period which is unrealistic. 10. The problem is a very real one. Developing countries are finding themselves hamstrung by the existing rules in running their food stockholding and domestic food aid programmes. The developed world too had market price support programmes and was able to move away from such support - though not fully even now - because of their deep pockets. This is not possible for developing countries. It is important for developing countries to be able to guarantee some minimum returns to their poor farmers so that they are able to produce enough for themselves and for domestic food security. 11. Developed countries continue to have large entitlements to provide support to farmers. These would have been cut in the Doha Development Round which unfortunately remains unfinished. Had this Round, which has development at its core, concluded as per the agreed timelines and its development agenda, the world would have had an outcome in a single undertaking in which competing interests could have been balanced. Today, developing countries are fighting to keep the negotiations focused on development against the single-minded mercantilist focus of most of the rich developed world on market access issues. 12. Overall balance is important even in a limited package of outcomes. The Bali outcomes were negotiated as a package and must be concluded as such. 13. It is regrettable indeed that today the WTO is unable to agree even to fast track negotiations on an issue of such importance to millions of subsistence farmers across the developing world, while the rich world can continue to subsidise their farmers unabatedly. 14. The matter came up for discussion in the margins of the BRICS Trade Ministers meeting in Brazil on 14 July and the G20 Trade Ministers meeting in Sydney on 19 July. It was also raised by the representatives of some countries in their interactions with the Indian government. On each occasion I explained that India is a signatory to the Bali Decisions, including Trade Facilitation and is not standing in the way of its implementation but is seeking an equal level of commitment and progress in working on the issue of public stockholding which affects the country`s livelihood and food security. A permanent solution on food security is a must for us and we cannot wait endlessly in a state of uncertainty while the WTO engages in an academic debate on the subject of food security which is what some developed countries seem to be suggesting before they are ready to engage on this important issue. 15. Food security is a humanitarian concern especially in these times of uncertainty and volatility. Issues of development and food security are critical to a vast swathe of humanity and cannot be sacrificed to mercantilist considerations. 16. Developing countries such as India must have the freedom to use food reserves to feed their poor without the threat of violating any international obligations. This is our sovereign right. It is our duty to protect our citizens` fundamental rights to life and livelihood. 17. Agriculture is the mainstay of the Indian population. In a country of the size of India with 60% of the population dependent on a relatively unremunerative agriculture sector, we cannot give up administered prices. This is the only way we can procure food for the Public Distribution System (PDS), the central pillar on which our efforts to ensure food security, rest. Public stockholding is a widely used means to ensure food security in many developing countries where agriculture is largely rainfed. 18. We have to look after both consumer and producer interests. We have to enable our people to live a life of dignity by ensuring access to an adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices. 19. On 25 July 2014, India made a statement in the WTO General Council conveying, inter alia, that the adoption of the TF Protocol must be postponed till a permanent solution on public stockholding for food security is found. 20. India offered suggestions on the procedure to be followed in order to ensure time-bound delivery of an outcome on public stockholding for food security. We also urged that a similar approach be adopted on all other elements of the Bali Package notably the LDC issues. 21. The integrity of India`s stand is reflected in our unwavering efforts to offer a way forward in the face of criticism. Even on 31 July 2014, India offered a way to achieve not only a permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security but also to implement the Trade Facilitation Agreement in the agreed timeframe as well as deliver favourable outcomes for LDCs. 22. We have offered practical suggestions for the way forward. The issue of a permanent solution on public stockholding is a simple one that can be addressed very easily as there are already several proposals on the table. A solution to this simple problem will be a tremendous relief for millions of farmers and poor consumers. 23. However, despite India`s efforts, our concerns were not satisfactorily addressed. 24. The Director General of the WTO reported to an informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee on 31 July 2014 that a solution could not be found to bridge the gap. 25. The General Council meeting was, thereafter, formally declared closed without adopting the TF protocol. 26. India stood firm on its demands despite immense pressure. The Government of India is committed to protecting the interests of our farmers against all odds. Our farmers work in extremely adverse conditions, most of them at the mercy of the vagaries of the monsoon, aggravated today by climate change. For farmers in many developing countries farming is a subsistence activity, not a commercial one. We are committed to their welfare and I am grateful for the support and understanding extended by farmers` organizations in this cause. 27. I must also thank Hon`ble Members of Parliament, many civil society groups and academicians who have lent their voice in support of the Government`s efforts to ensure a fair deal. 28. It is evident from the expressions of support that India`s stand has resonated across the world and I take this opportunity to also thank the countries that have stood by India in the VVTO. 29. India is an unwavering votary of the multilateral trading system and we reiterate our commitment to the WTO. We continue to believe that it is in the best interest of developing countries, especially the poorest, most marginalized ones among them and we are determined to work to strengthen this institution. The timely correction of any imbalances or anomalies in the working of the system or its rules is critical to ensure that the WTO works impartially and fairly in the interest of all its Members and not just a select few. 30. I am confident that India will be able to persuade the WTO Membership to appreciate the sensitivities of India and other developing countries and see their way to taking this issue forward in a positive spirit. This would be a major contribution by this institution towards `meeting the global challenge of food insecurity and would convey -a strong message that .the WTO is genuinely committed to the cause of development

Speech by the President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee at the higher educational and research institutions on the topic, “democracy and governance”

Leaders of institutions of higher learning; Heads of other academic and research institutions; faculty members; my dear students: 1. I am happy to address you at the beginning of this new academic session. I welcome all the students who have joined universities and other centres of higher learning for the first time. During the Annual Conference of Vice Chancellors of central universities held in the Rashtrapati Bhavan in February 2013, it was decided that I will have e-interaction with academic institutions twice a year - once in the beginning of the calendar year and again in August, on commencement of the academic year. I first interacted through this e-platform in January, 2014. I express my gratitude to Prof. S.V. Raghavan and his team at the National Knowledge Network, and the NIC team, for making this video-talk possible. Dear Students: 2. You, the youth of our country, are our future. You have a stake in the progress of this nation and the welfare of its people. General Elections to the 16th Lok Sabha were held in April and May, this year. Election is a great festival of democracy and a crucial milestone in a nation’s journey towards peace, progress and prosperity. Many amongst you have voted for the first time in the elections this year. That how deep the roots of our democracy are can be gauged from the fact that from a level of about 58 per cent in both the 2004 and 2009 General Elections, the voter turnout has gone up to an encouraging 66 per cent in this year’s Elections. I compliment you for your enthusiastic participation in this largest democratic exercise of the world. 3. This Election has provided majority to a single party for the formation of a stable government after thirty years, with a mandate to provide good governance. Good governance is a mechanism to establish order, pursue social and economic progress and promote welfare of the people. As developing countries grapple with a multitude of socio-economic objectives, standards of governance have come into sharp focus in recent years. In this backdrop, I have chosen to speak to you today on an issue of contemporary relevance - Democracy and Governance. Friends: 4. Though good governance entered the lexicon of development two decades back, its essentials were prevalent in India since ancient times. In Arthshastra, Kautilya had described the qualities of a King as and I quote: "The happiness of the people is the happiness of the king; their good alone is his, his personal good is not his true good; the only true good being that of his people. Therefore let the King be active in working for the prosperity and welfare of his people” (unquote). On the eve of India’s independence, Pandit Nehru in his ‘tryst with destiny’ speech outlined the aim of a free India as the ending of poverty, ignorance, disease and inequality of opportunities. It was evident that political freedom would carry little meaning without social and economic justice. 5. At the time of Independence, we the people of India chose democracy as the form of government. Our democratic ideals flow from the Constitution, which reflects our civilizational values. The Preamble, the Fundamental Rights, the Fundamental Duties and the Directive Principles of State Policy contain the ingredients of good governance. In the Preamble, we resolved to constitute India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens: Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity, and to promote among them all; and Fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation. Fundamental rights are essential to preserve human dignity. Human dignity cannot be assured without the elimination of poverty. The Directive Principles are an essential guide to good governance practices. Only good governance can eradicate deprivation and backwardness. In the landmark judgment in the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala in 1973, the Supreme Court observed that both Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are equally ‘fundamental’. The Constitution has given us the three pillars of democracy - Parliament, Executive and Judiciary. The provision of freedom of speech and expression has given rise to a powerful and vigilant media. 6. In India, I see good governance as exercise of power, within the framework of the Constitution, for efficient and effective management of our economic and social resources for the well-being of the people, through the institutions of state. Our Constitution is a living document which has evolved with time and within its spacious provisions accommodated the changing needs of a growing democracy. It is a constant reminder of our civilizational values, which we at times tend to forget. We will do well to remind ourselves, at least occasionally, that these values are sacrosanct in the functioning of our democracy. Friends: 7. Good governance is not a given in any system. It has to be nurtured by carefully developing institutions of democracy. Distortions happen when one institution does not function in the manner expected of it leading to overreach by others. What is required then is strengthening, re-invigorating and re-inventing these institutions to meet the needs of the time. It calls for wider involvement of the civil society. It entails free and open participation in the political processes by the people. It calls for ever-increasing engagement of the youth in the institutions and processes of democracy. It calls for ethical and responsible behaviour from the media. 8. Good governance is critically dependent on pre-requisites like inviolable adherence to rule of law, existence of participatory decision-making structure, responsiveness, transparency, accountability, corruption-free society, equity and inclusiveness. In short, good governance implies a framework that has well-being of the people as its focal point. Progressive legislations provide an enabling environment and empower citizens to access entitlements. Some examples are the right to Information, education, food and employment. 9. Novel legislations can work only with robust delivery mechanisms. Corruption leads to denial of equitable distribution of benefits. Complexity and opacity of rules and procedures, discretion in the exercise of power, and weak enforcement of legal provisions are factors contributing to corruption. While we might need some new institutions to fight corruption, the solution lies not merely in creating more institutions but in strengthening and reforming the existing institutions to deliver results. 10. Good governance calls for adequate decentralization of power. Panchayati Raj institutions need financial autonomy and administrative ability. Reforms in this third tier of governance are necessary for sharing of real power with the people. 11. Governance implies involving the civil society as an equal collaborator. One must therefore be conscious of her duties and responsibilities, besides rights. Intolerance and acrimony in public discourse has to be avoided. Our country needs constructive partners rather than privilege seekers. I call upon you to contribute to a healthy democratic society and good governance practices in all spheres of functioning.Friends and dear students: 12. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan had once said and I quote: "All education is, on the one side, a search for truth; on the other side, it is a pursuit of social betterment. You may discover truth but you should apply it to improve the status of society” (unquote). A sound education system is the bedrock of an enlightened society. Our institutes of higher learning are the cradle of future administrators and policy makers. The seeds of progressive thinking have to be sown and nurtured here. The core civilizational values of love for motherland; performance of duty; compassion for all; tolerance for pluralism; respect for women; honesty in life; self-restraint in conduct, responsibility in action and discipline have to be inculcated in these institutions. 13. A democracy cannot be healthy without informed participation. You, dear students, are amongst the brightest young minds in this country. The society has invested in you, and in return, you owe something to the society. You are entrusted with the people’s hopes and expectations. Read, learn and formulate views on national issues. Make the governance of this country your passion. Choose to engage with our beautiful but sometimes noisy democracy. As the future practitioners of governance, you have to play an active and positive role in ensuring that these institutions perform their duties with responsibility. 14. In the context of our democracy, good governance is a reflection of the successful functioning of the institutions of state with the singular intention of the well-being of citizens at heart. With these words, I conclude. I now leave the floor for a few questions.

Ways to grow

When the BRICS countries signed an agreement establishing a New Development Bank, political analysis should have taken into account more than its strategic importance to international development and finance. Four days later, the UN’s Open Working Group revealed its draft of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 17 commitments which set the global development agenda for the post-2015 world. There was a looming crisis at the heart of both initiatives, that our future is not a sustainable one. Perhaps more importantly, that our present isn’t either.

In 2015, the Millennium Development Goals, which have been the focus of development interventions for the past decade and a half, will be replaced by a new set of objectives. For the next 15 years, the world will put its efforts behind the SDGs on poverty, health, food security, industrialisation, education, water, consumption, peace and climate change, among other issues. The remarkable thing about these goals is that they represent a departure from what development has meant so far. That “development” as a paradigm is no longer adequate either for political or economic policy or for business is articulated in the new terminology. Sustainability is not expected to complement growth by numbers. The new development paradigm is sustainable development. At Fortaleza, the BRICS were not only asserting a more Southern orientation for the future of development financing, they were also acknowledging the need to mainstream sustainability within it.

Most discourse on sustainability has tended to see it as the solution to long-term challenges, in a distinctly Malthusian tenor. Malthus had infamously theorised that the world’s population grows exponentially, while its capacity and resources grow arithmetically, predicting that the planet will not accommodate the growth of people beyond a point. More recently, the science on climate change put out disaster warnings, which tended to be viewed not in terms of their current implications, but future ones. In policy, the question of sustainable development was afforded its due rhetoric and then relegated to a limited “environment” sector.

But sustainability, in its most complete sense, will be crucial to the challenges confronting our countries today. The most well-known definition of sustainable development comes from the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, which described it as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The UN University’s Inclusive Wealth Report in 2012 said that, despite significant progress in the last 25 years, humanity has failed to “ensure its own long-term viability”. One might argue that the future we were supposed to build through sustainability policies is already here. Tragedies like the one wrought by the recent landslide in Pune, urban pollution and the traffic crisisin urban spaces like those of China, and the resource-conflict driven massacre of Darfur, demonstrate how ecologically conscious development is a necessary response to problems today. The zeitgeist since has taken sustainable development beyond the ecological. It is isn’t merely about managing our natural wealth with the future in mind, but about sustaining opportunity for all.

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty First Century isn’t the first work of economics to point to the long-term challenges of unequal growth. The momentum towards the need for a new economics was catalysed by the 2008 financial crises. The rational model, and the utilitarian logic which underpinned it, could neither fully explain the collapse nor justify the narrowing of economic opportunity for the majority at the bottom of the Stiglitz pyramid.

The draft SDGs are calling for “inclusive and sustainable economic growth” and “sustainable consumption and production patterns”. More interestingly, they are calling for the reduction of “inequalities within and among countries”. A high-level panel, co-chaired by David Cameron and convened by the UN secretary general, on the post-2015 global development agenda determined that a better future required fundamental and “transformative shifts” instead of the same compartments of sectoral interventions. There is a growing recognition that peace, sustainable development, equity, social justice and security are too closely interlinked to be considered separate bodies of effort.

The logical policy trajectory for states attempting to build wealthier, more peaceful and resilient societies is inclusive and sustainable development. In a future of limited resources, growth can no longer be the measure of a country’s success. The SDGs are calling for ways to measure progress that complement the GDP. Perhaps it is also time to consider development beyond development.