The image and the man

I am told on good authority that far from taking a swipe at India, US President Barack Obama did Narendra Modi a favour by saying "every person has the right to practise his faith without any persecution, fear or discrimination." According to this version, if the prime minister didn't actually ask the president to warn Indians of the dangers of religious fanaticism, he encouraged him to do so. Modi may have felt it might compensate for what the Delhi archdiocese chancellor, Father Mathew Koyickal, has since called his "deafening silence on recurring targeted attacks on our places of worship."

Since any US president is to some extent the prisoner of Bible-thumping and human rights lobbies, Obama's team felt it would be unwise to sweep either their concerns or the rejection of Modi's visa applications for a decade under the carpet. American credibility demanded some reference that the president could then cite at home both to justify Washington's earlier visa refusal and to prove he hadn't sold out on principles that earnest-minded children of the Pilgrim Fathers hold dear.

Apparently, when he sought to whisper a word of caution in his host's ear, Modi turned round and said something like, "Why not say it aloud? Let everyone hear your views on the subject!" Obama obliged, possibly not realising that in discharging his own domestic obligation he was also pulling Modi's chestnuts out of the fire. Indian analysts and television anchors might in their ignorance fume over such seeming impertinence. Significantly, however, there wasn't even a squeak of comment - leave alone protest - from anyone in authority in the party or government.

For all his handsome majority and control of a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) he has purged of potential critics, Modi, too, must be wary of his stalwarts. Part of the secret of his success is that he lives - nay thrives - more on perceptions than on verifiable facts. Very few people actually know the prime minister. But everyone nurses an image of the man. It's the image that inspires like and dislike.

Businessmen swear by him as the architect of growth, irrespective of tangible measures to increase GDP. The urban middle classes see him as the pioneer of civic welfare without noticing that in their eagerness to make the headlines, publicity-hungry amateurs in the Swachh Bharat crusade may leave behind more litter than they clear. Many Muslims in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan fear he is a committed foe.

Modi's relationship with religion compounds the paradox. He refuses to wear a Muslim cap and makes a big thing of worshipping Mother Ganga. But he won't oblige Hindutva champions by demolishing mosques and erecting temples to Rama. Yet, he dare not - certainly not on the eve of the Delhi elections - discipline rampaging bigots who desecrate churches, attack discos and dance halls, murder missionaries, rape nuns and force Muslims to convert. It was with their unspoken but powerful backing that he pulled off a coup and worsted BJP veterans who played by conventional rules and enjoyed the confidence even of people who didn't endorse their ideology.

This is where an obliging buddy like Obama comes in handy. As Subrahmanyam Jaishankar told the Carnegie Endowment last year when he was still India's ambassador, the India-US relationship has survived the romance of courtship and arrived, and that Indians and Americans are victims of their own success. Dizzy courtship yields to staid marital stability when partners take each other for granted. Modi's proud boasts on the Mann ki Baat programme and at Hyderabad House left listeners in no doubt he felt he was on terms of the utmost intimacy with the exalted guest whose first name he lovingly trotted out no fewer than 23 times. That being so, it would be only natural for the prime minister to explain his dilemma to Obama and explain that a few words of warning and reproof from him might not come amiss.

A Jawaharlal Nehru would have bristled indignantly at an American president's intervention. But, then, Nehru wouldn't have been so flattered at being matey with a Western leader, especially one who determinedly refused to reciprocate his aggressive familiarity. Nor could any Christian priest ever have said of Nehru, "We are sure he would not have been silent if temples were desecrated."

---

Leave aside the demeaning social one-upmanship, what matters is that a tocsin has been sounded. Modi's most ardent camp-followers now know they will be blamed if the Indo-US barque runs aground. Whether they will heed the warning is another matter

India’s tango with the great powers

Geopolitical and economic factors and the re-energised relationship between the U.S. and India are the drivers of change in the trilateral relationship between India, Russia and China. The cumulative impact of these two trends points to a new, emerging configuration of the triangular relationship

The latest trilateral meeting between the foreign ministers of India, Russia and China was held on shifting strategic sands. It would be no exaggeration to say that the triangular relationship between these countries is entering a new phase — one that differs significantly from the past. India’s ability to navigate this unfolding terrain will not only impinge on its relationships with Russia and China, but also on its wider, international objectives and choices.

The drivers of change in this trilateral relationship are primarily geopolitical and economic. The civil war in Ukraine shows no sign of abating, nor indeed does Russia’s involvement in the conflict. The resurgence of the fighting in eastern Ukraine has left the peace talks in tatters. And Russian support for the rebels has ensured that the Ukrainian forces cannot gain the upper hand. Indeed, the Ukrainians have suffered heavily in the recent fighting. This has led to a chorus of calls in the West to arm the Ukrainian forces. Although U.S. President Barack Obama has demurred against this, several influential voices — including Mr. Obama’s nominee for Defence Secretary, Ashton Carter — have come out in favour of providing heavy weapons to Ukraine.

Any such move will lead Russian President Vladimir Putin to dig in his heels still deeper. Russia already faces a raft of economic sanctions imposed by the European Union (EU) and the U.S. The Russian economy is apparently wilting under the one-two punch of these sanctions and the free-fall in oil prices. The projected slowdown in growth, the depleting foreign exchange reserves, the rising inflation, the downgrading of Russia’s credit rating to junk status: all point to a serious economic crunch. The economic sanctions have already led Russia to tilt closer towards China. The talk of providing weapons to Ukraine or imposing further sanctions will accentuate this shift.

The second driver of change is the re-energised relationship between the U.S. and India. The U.S.-India Joint Strategic Vision put out during Mr. Obama’s visit not only singles out the South China Sea dispute but also commits India and the U.S. to work together with other democracies in the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific region. The wisdom of issuing such a statement is debatable. Are we staking our credibility before creating capabilities? Does it needlessly restrict our room for diplomatic manoeuvre in the event of a crisis in the South China Sea? New Delhi insists that a strategic embrace of the U.S. need not limit its relations with China. While this may be true in some generic sense, we should not forget that every move on the chessboard of international politics will invite countermoves. We do not yet live in a world that is free of consequences.

India-Russia relationship

The cumulative impact of these two trends points to a new, emerging configuration of the triangular relationship between India, Russia and China. Going forward, Russia-China ties might become the strongest side of the triangle. From India’s standpoint, this is historically unprecedented. New Delhi’s strategic ties with Moscow first took shape in the late 1950s. The backcloth to the blossoming of this relationship was provided by India’s deteriorating relationship with China owing to the disputed boundary. At the same time, ideological and strategic ties between Moscow and Beijing were coming apart. Although the Russians played an ambivalent role during the war of 1962, Indo-Soviet ties, especially in defence, continued to tighten.

The clashes between Soviet and Chinese forces in 1969 led Moscow to propose a treaty of friendship with India. The treaty was eventually consummated at the height of the Bangladesh crisis of 1971. This crisis also saw the American opening towards Maoist China, which subsequently led to a strategic nexus aimed at the Soviet Union. While New Delhi and Moscow were pulled together by their shared concerns about Beijing, India found its choices being circumscribed in other areas as well. For instance, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, India publicly supported the Russians, while the Americans and the Chinese covertly assisted Pakistan and the Mujahideen against the Red Army.

By the time the Cold War drew to an end, there was a rapprochement between Russia and China. The collapse of the Soviet Union also led India to look more towards the West. Yet, at no point, was there a possibility of a Russia-China entente of the kind that is now crystallising. Nor did the normalisation of the Russia-China relationship outweigh Indo-Russian ties. Most importantly, the developing relationship between Moscow and Beijing did not impact on New Delhi’s immediate interests.

All this appears to be changing. In June 2014, Russia announced the lifting of its long-standing embargo on arms sales to Pakistan. In November, Russia and Pakistan signed their first ever military cooperation agreement. The Russians argue that if India can buy defence equipment from the U.S., why couldn’t they sell to Pakistan. The problem for India, of course, is the strategic import of such moves by Russia. Then again, we must realise that our growing proximity to the U.S. reduces our leverage over Russia. As does Russia’s increasing tilt towards China. As always, a bit of history can be useful.

“Russia-China ties might become the strongest side of the triangle. From India’s standpoint, this is historically unprecedented.”

Back in the 1960s, the Russians first mooted the idea of selling military equipment to Pakistan. The Indian response was swift and sharp. In a meeting with Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi bluntly said that “nothing should be done from which it could be inferred that the Soviet Union treated India at par with Pakistan.” India, she added, was “especially worried with regard to Soviet help [to Pakistan], as such help might neutralise what we have obtained from the Soviet Union.” Moscow promptly backed off. The Russians did so because they needed Indian support in their own problems with China. Moreover, India — unlike Pakistan — was not an American ally.

Security architecture

The strategic picture now is rather different. Discussions in the recent trilateral meeting underscored the complexities that will confront India. The joint statement issued in Beijing makes the usual noises about the desirability of a multipolar world. Yet, several points need to be unpacked. The statement calls for a security architecture in Asia that must be “open, inclusive, indivisible and transparent”. The use of “indivisible” is interesting. This refers to the American “pivot” and attempts at rallying its allies. By contrast, the India-U.S. statement supports — at least rhetorically — the U.S.-led efforts. The Chinese and Russians have clearly taken note.

Things would be easy for India if it confronted stark choices between the U.S. and China. Consider the position taken by the three countries on climate change. The statement hopes that in 2015, a legally-binding instrument would be arrived at on the basis of “equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” This fits with India’s negotiating position so far. But the fact is that the U.S. and China have already agreed upon a plan that effectively carves out an exceptional space for themselves and leaves little for countries like India to work with. This is a nice example of the “G2” solutions for which India will have to watch out.

Another instance of this might be in international trade. The joint statement affirms that the World Trade Organization (WTO) must remain the “preeminent global forum trade”. This reflects their concern about U.S. efforts to create new regional trading blocs in Europe and Asia. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being negotiated by the Obama administration aims to bring into force a very different kind of Free Trade Agreements (FTA) in Asia-Pacific, which will bring on to the trade agenda a new set of norms and standards. The Chinese have been explicitly kept out of it by the Americans — in the hope that China will eventually have to come to terms with this trade agenda. Indeed, as the TPP negotiations near completion, the Chinese have informally conveyed to the U.S. their desire to get on board. As in climate change, a U.S.-China convergence on this issue will hurt Indian interests.

Then again, there are issues where the three countries’ interests seem closely aligned — and in opposition to the U.S. They have agreed to support a U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) resolution prohibiting intervention and “forced regime change”. This cuts against the idea of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which was introduced by the western powers through the UNGA and sought to be built up as a norm governing interventions.

India’s relations with the great powers, then, are entering a period of unprecedented complexity. There are no pat solutions or simple trade-offs. And every move we make will be consequential.

Focus on implementing policy

This is the final year for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were set for the period 1990-2015, and as clear indications are available on what can be achieved by the end of the period, a stocktaking can be undertaken. A UN report has done just that, and a mixed picture emerges. Targets in achievement have been exceeded in some areas, while they have not been in others. The targets themselves in some areas have been modest, so that achieving them fully or substantially should not raise the comfort level unduly. An enormous amount of work still remains to be done in terms of achieving minimum levels of development and policy should be geared to that. For example, the target of halving the number of people without sanitation will be almost achieved - but according to 2011-12 figures, 44 per cent of people were still without access to proper toilets.

The report card for the first goal, eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, is positive. The target of halving the proportion of people earning less than $1 a day has already been achieved. The concurrent goal of halving the proportion of people who suffer from hunger (measured by the prevalence of under-three underweight children) will miss the target, but only slightly. The second goal of reaching primary education to all will be substantially achieved as will be the survival ratio (those entering class I reaching class V) by looking at the enrolment figures, but all know by now, this is a poor indicator of how much of the reading and writing skills children actually acquire. The achievement in promoting the third goal of gender equality will be substantial - but that's thanks to targets being exceeded by three indicators (proportion of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education). In real terms, India will be a laggard - look at the proportion of women able to take up non-agricultural wage employment, with only 19 per cent being in that position in 2011-12.

When it comes to the fourth goal - of reducing child mortality - there is a real need to sit up and take notice. The targets of reducing by two-thirds the under-one and under-five mortality ratio, and those without measles immunisation, will all be missed by sizeable margins. It is in the area of maternal mortality, where also India's record has been poor, that the picture will be mixed and not wholly negative. The target of reducing by three-quarters the maternal mortality rate will be exceeded, but the achievement in raising the proportion of births attended by skilled personnel will be less than 80 per cent of the target.

The goal to reduce India's disease burden by combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases looks like being achieved - trends are positive. Similarly, the target for reducing the proportion of those without access to safe drinking water by half will be more than achieved through 90 per cent coverage. It is likely that in most fields - barring perhaps education and gender-based employment - more or less the right policies are in place. It is now a question of last-mile implementation.

Shifting global axis

The Chinese economy is slowing down, Russia's is tanking.Europe can't seem to get out of its debt and currency crisis, and Japan can't seem to get growth going. Brazil is troubled by more than lower oil prices, while in Europe it is not just Greece and Spain that are the problem. Italy's economy has shrunk every year for the last five years, and has enormous debt weighing down its future. The US economy has been the only bright spot in recent months, while Indian gross domestic product (GDP) numbers have just done a rope trick. Where is the world economy headed, especially when the central banks of the largest economies are serially pumping out enormous amounts of cash in a desperate effort to get growth going?

It helps to look at medium-term trends, over five years since the financial crisis of 2008 (international data comparisons are available only till 2013). Among the great developed economies of the world, the United States has grown, Japan has been stagnant and the European Union's GDP has shrunk. Between the three of them, overall GDP has expanded by barely three per cent in these five years. Indeed if you take the six largest economies of Europe, every one of them has seen GDP shrink (Germany only marginally so).

The BRICS economies offer a sharp contrast to this trend. Chinese GDP has doubled, and India's has grown more than 50 per cent. Brazil and Russia have grown, too, but more modestly. When all four BRICS economies are taken together, they grew 60 per cent in this period. Barring accidents, the combined BRICS GDP may become bigger than America's in a couple of years. Five years ago, they were less than two-thirds of the US economy.

The swing from the developed economies to the emerging markets is a broader trend, not confined to BRICS. Seven smaller emerging economies - like Indonesia and Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Argentina - saw their combined GDP grow by close to 40 per cent during this period. Most of them matched India's five-year growth, while Indonesia and Nigeria did even better. Indeed when you look at the African economies, they have had some of the best growth records of this period. Africa was the fastest growing continent in 2013, and a third of the sub-Saharan economies have been growing faster than six per cent.

It goes without saying that country rankings have changed. India was ranked 12th among the large economies in 2008, and moved up to 10th by 2013, overtaking Canada and Spain. In 2015 it could well be eighth, overtaking troubled Russia and shrinking Italy. Brazil meanwhile has moved up from 10th to seventh, and China has moved from third to second, while Russia has remained where it was, in ninth place. Canada and Spain have now dropped out of the top 10. This is not to suggest that no wealthy, trillion-dollar economy is doing well. Canada, Australia and South Korea have all grown in these five years. Nevertheless, the shift in momentum towards the emerging markets is undeniable.

If one were to look ahead to the next five years, these trends are almost certain to continue, despite China slowing down and Russia losing its way in a haze of tough-state nationalism. India's growth prospects have improved, and Indonesia (which recently overtook Turkey's economy in size) could join the trillion-dollar club before too long. The original BRICS countries should have been less politically correct when they included South Africa in their grouping and added Indonesia instead, even if that meant three Asian members and no African representation. With South Korea and Australia the two best-performing rich countries, there is little doubt that the swing towards Asia is even more marked than the rise of the emerging economies as a whole.

India, China and an opportunity

Keeping up the momentum in India-China relations, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj came back from her three-day visit to China with several deliverables — including a new Chinese openness in seeing India take up permanent membership of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Previously, the Chinese had linked SCO membership with a greater role for Beijing in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Ms. Swaraj, during her first visit to China as External Affairs Minister, built on the three meetings Prime Minister Narendra Modi has had with Chinese President Xi Jinping. She also called on the Chinese President, a rare opportunity for any visiting Foreign Minister. Clearance for the early operationalisation of a new route to Kailash Mansarovar and a decision to hold a session of talks between the Special Representatives tasked by the two sides to resolve the boundary dispute, are other takeaways. Her trip was also part of preparations for Mr. Modi’s visit later in the year. As reported in the Chinese media, President Xi himself has set the agenda for taking bilateral ties to a new level by suggesting that the two countries seize the “opportunity of the century” by combining their development strategies. With a slowing economy and sluggish European recovery, China may be focussing on the Indian market. It also appears willing to invest, following Prime Minister Modi’s “Make in India” call.

It is in such a scenario of contact and consultation that “strong leaders” such as Mr. Modi and Mr. Xi can think about making some hard decisions when it comes to the decades-old boundary dispute that keeps surfacing during major bilateral visits. So far, the coalition nature of Indian governments has been seen as a major obstacle to the give-and-take, compromise approach on the border question. Today, Mr. Modi is in the happy situation where he can take a political call on issues, rising above intra-coalition pressures. In 2005, the Agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the Boundary Question signed by the two countries had raised hopes for an eventual settlement, but those have been belied. It would also seem that President Barack Obama’s successful visit to India around Republic Day has not dampened Beijing’s willingness to take relations with Delhi to the next level. Interestingly, India while talking to the U.S. and its other allies in the Asia-Pacific about safety in the sea-lanes, has agreed to set up a “consultation mechanism” on Asia-Pacific affairs with China and Russia. India’s diplomatic success lies in keeping several balls in the air at the same time

Essay2/2015

write an essay in 1000-1200 word .


Three dimensions of sustainability – economic, ecological and social. sustainable policies and idea of maximum  welfare are twin solution for future sustainability.

The price of indiscretion

Union Home Secretary Anil Goswami’s removal from office will help keep the Central Bureau of Investigation autonomous and independent

Union Home Secretary Anil Goswami’s removal from office is a bold move by the government and will be welcomed by all those who stand for an independent Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) — one that is allowed to discharge its functions freely and fearlessly. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Rajnath Singh deserve to be complimented for their swift decision. From all accounts, the act was not capricious; they chose to probe deeply into allegations that were swirling around in the New Delhi circles over the past few days before sacking Mr. Goswami. It is believed that the CBI Director produced enough material evidence to prove the impropriety of the Home Secretary in trying to stall the arrest of former Union Minister Matang Sinh in connection with the Saradha Scam. Mr. Sinh was widely known to be influential, even after the United Progressive Alliance government lost power at the Centre. This time, however, he ran out of luck while trying to intimidate the CBI. Mr. Goswami and Mr. Sinh are said to have known each other for several years. Obviously Mr. Sinh had called the Home Secretary to save himself the embarrassment of an arrest by the CBI, and it is likely that their conversation was recorded.

Unmitigated impropriety

Thereafter the facts become slightly fuzzy. The rumours on the grapevine are that Mr. Goswami called some senior CBI officers (probably not the Director himself) to plead his friend’s case. The officers spoken to by the Home Secretary thereafter conveyed this to the Director, who in turn promptly brought the whole episode to the notice of the Home Minister and the Prime Minister. It is still not known whether the Home Secretary acted on his own after knowing that his friend was in distress or he was a mere conduit through which some political bigwig — now not in power — was trying to save Mr. Sinh. The truth may never come out. In any case this was unmitigated impropriety on the part of a very senior civil servant who is culpable to the core.

“The CBI has become stronger with the knowledge that no one will dare to dictate terms to it in future”

Mind you, the charges against Mr. Sinh were not ordinary. He was being probed for serious criminal misconduct which merited an arrest and a custodial interrogation. It was for the CBI to make up its mind on this, and whatever it did was to be reviewed only by the courts and not by anyone else, including the executive. I am happy that the government lost no time in acting as it did.

In my view, Mr. Goswami’s indiscretion (to put it mildly) was both artless and unethical. He has justifiably paid a heavy price. The episode sends the right signal to both senior officers and non-officials in high places that they will come to grief if they ever try to deflect serious criminal investigations undertaken by the country’s highest law enforcement agency. I laud the current CBI Director for having brought the facts to the government’s notice. The normal tendency would have been to suppress such interference in CBI matters, especially when the person meddling is either a Minister or a senior civil servant.

Not many may know that the Home Secretary is a powerful entity in the capital and can play with the careers of senior police officers. Many senior officers genuflect before him for routine favours. It is true that many in Mr. Goswami’s position in the past had been great leaders and men of the highest integrity. But it is equally true that there have been a few aberrations — there have been erratic and egoistic officers who have abused their proximity to centres of power only to promote the cause of some favoured unscrupulous policemen, while at the same time destroying the careers of the not-so-unbending.

My own experience was not very pleasant; I had to deal with someone who chose to flout even what the Home Minister had granted the CBI by way of infrastructure support. I presumed he had a hang-up as far as the CBI was concerned, and he had to constantly settle scores with the organisation by denying it the support it required. We need a powerful Home Minister, both knowledgeable and plodding, and who will hold the Home Secretary to account, as Mr. Singh has done.

Not many know that the CBI is part of the Department of Personnel and Training which works under the Prime Minister. The Home Ministry is mainly a facilitator which lends support to the CBI in the form of manpower, especially by providing Indian Police Service officers borrowed from various States. Otherwise it has no authority over the CBI, especially in matters of anti-corruption work. (With respect to conventional crimes, the Ministry transfers cases received at the instance of States to the CBI or the National Investigation Agency for investigation.)

The CBI Director’s administrative head is the Prime Minister and no one else. (This is a legacy of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi who brought the agency under her control after moving it out of the Home Ministry. The objective was not exactly honourable.) That the Prime Minister is the controller deters many Ministers and civil servants from interfering in the agency’s investigations. If the CBI Director keeps the Home Minster informed of certain broad developments, it is purely as a matter of courtesy and certainly not as mandated by business rules. In my opinion, this is how it should be to avoid differing signals from being sent to the CBI.

Need for introspection
The CBI undoubtedly emerges credible from the unseemly episode. It has also become stronger with the knowledge that no one will dare to dictate terms to it in future. It is exactly this situation that calls for serious introspection on the part of the CBI leadership as to whether it deserves this majesty in the bureaucracy. CBI critics — there are far too many — would say that the organisation does not merit this kind of power or influence. The CBI Director and his top leadership have, therefore, a huge responsibility to ensure that their investigators do not run amuck. This is especially with regard to arrests of accused or suspects. The authority is enormous. It has to be exercised humanely, and with great care and caution. A hasty and unjustified arrest brings in more ignominy to an agency, especially at a time when it has suffered a leadership crisis. Two of its chiefs are under a cloud, and it is not known how the government is going to deal with them.

The cliché “Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion’ comes readily to my mind. Internal vigilance should be the watchword. Any failure on the part of the Director or his lieutenants to insist on the highest standards of integrity for themselves and for their ranks will be unpardonable. The loser from the CBI’s sloth and connivance with the corrupt will ultimately be the aam aadmi.