Environment Protection under Constitutional Framework of India

must read for ias mains
Environment Protection under Constitutional Framework of India


            The constitution of India is not an inert but a living document which evolves and grows with time. The specific provisions on environment protection in the constitution are also result of this evolving nature and growth potential of the fundamental law of the land. The preamble to our constitution ensures socialist pattern of the society and dignity of the individual. Decent standard of living and pollution free environment is inherent in this. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 defines environment as “environment includes water, air and land and the interrelationship which exists among and between air, water and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property”.

            The chapter on fundamental duties of the Indian Constitution clearly imposes duty on every citizen to protect environment. Article 51-A (g), says that “It shall be duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures.”

            The Directive principles under the Indian constitution directed towards ideals of building welfare state. Healthy environment is also one of the elements of welfare state.  Article 47 provides that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties. The improvement of public health also includes the protection and improvement of environment without which public health cannot be assured. Article 48 deals with organization of agriculture and animal husbandry. It directs the State to take steps to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines. In particular, it should take steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. Article 48 -A of the constitution says that “the state shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country”.

            The Constitution of India under part III guarantees fundamental rights which are essential for the development of every individual and to which a person is inherently entitled by virtue of being human alone. Right to environment is also a right without which development of individual and realisation of his or her full potential shall not be possible. Articles 21, 14 and 19 of this part have been used for environmental protection.

            According to Article 21 of the constitution, “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Article 21 has received liberal interpretation from time to time after the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (AIR 1978 SC 597). Article 21 guarantees fundamental right to life. Right to environment, free of danger of disease and infection is inherent in it. Right to healthy environment is important attribute of right to live with human dignity. The right to live in a healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the Constitution was first recognized in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State, AIR 1988 SC 2187 (Popularly known as Dehradun Quarrying Case). It is the first case of this kind in India, involving issues relating to environment and ecological balance in which Supreme Court directed to stop the excavation (illegal mining) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 the Supreme Court treated the right to live in pollution free environment as a part of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

           Excessive noise creates pollution in the society. The constitution of India under Article 19 (1) (a) read with Article 21 of the constitution guarantees right to decent environment and right to live peacefully. In PA Jacob vs. The Superintendent of Police Kottayam, AIR 1993 Ker 1, the Kerala High Court held that freedom of speech under article 19 (1)(a)  does not include freedom to use loud speakers or sound amplifiers.  Thus, noise pollution caused by the loud speakers can be controlled under article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution.

          Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian constitution confers fundamental right on every citizen to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.  This is subject to reasonable restrictions. A citizen cannot carry on business activity, if it is health hazards to the society or general public. Thus safeguards for environment protection are inherent in this.  The Supreme Court, while deciding the matter relating to carrying on trade of liquor in Cooverjee B. Bharucha  Vs Excise commissioner, Ajmer (1954, SC 220) observed that, if there is clash between  environmental protection and right to freedom of trade and occupation, the courts have to balance environmental interests with the fundamental rights to carry on any occupations.

            Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 and 226 of the constitution of India resulted in a wave of environmental litigation. The leading environmental cases decided by the Supreme Court includes case of closure of limestone quarries in the Dehradun region (Dehradun Quarrying case, AIR 1985 SC 652), the installation of safeguard at a chlorine plant in Delhi (M.C. Mehta V. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037) etc.  In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647, the Court observed that “the Precautionary Principle” and “the Polluter Pays Principle” are essential features of “Sustainable Development.”

            At local and village level also, Panchayats have been empowered under the constitution to take measures such as soil conservation, water management, forestry and protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspect.

            Environment protection is part of our cultural values and traditions. In Atharvaveda, it has been said that “Man’s paradise is on earth; this living world is the beloved place of all; It has the blessings of nature’s bounties; live in a lovely spirit”. Earth is our paradise and it is our duty to protect our paradise. The constitution of India embodies the framework of protection and preservation of nature without which life cannot be enjoyed. The knowledge of constitutional provisions regarding environment protection is need of the day to bring greater public participation, environmental awareness, environmental education and sensitize the people to preserve ecology and environment.

DO HARD WORK TO CRACK IAS-14

The competition is getting tough. To be ahead you must prepare carefully and consistently. Carefully because the market is flooded with irrelevant books and coaching materials. Add to this wrong guidance.

Consistency is very important if you want to clear this exam. Without it, you will be wasting a lot of time now and then. When you waste lots of time now, this mistake takes a toll on your preparation when exam is very near. The pressure builds and performance suffers.

Preliminary exam paper-I is crucial in two aspects: first, if you prepare thoroughly the syllabus given for this paper, it build a strong foundation to all the Four General Studies papers of Mains exam. Secondly, it is important to get at least 50-60 questions correct in it as you never know what UPSC has in store for you in future: it might make Paper-2 just qualifying in nature; or it might make it tough by including more aptitude questions; or it can even make paper-1 very tough and fix minimum cut-off.

Raj Dharma and Buddhi dharma

There seems to be some anxiety among the intellectual class about doing their duty and being critical of the lapses of the ruling dispensation

When a government with the kind of formidable majority that Narendra Modi commands takes office, and when such a government signals that it intends not just regime change but also system reform, we know that we have entered a zone of moral and political uncertainty. In such a historical conjuncture when the Nehruvian paradigm of statecraft is seen as constituting the problem and not the solution, i.e., when it is not the historical good fortune that we had been brought up to believe it was, and when many respected public intellectuals are now speaking out against Nehru’s legacy, the time has come for us to bring key concepts into the public discourse. These concepts must be drawn from our own civilisational resources and must satisfy the condition of being both native and modern, if what was said during the campaign is to be seen as not just rhetoric but an honest realism.

Universal and specific

Of the concepts available for consideration, none has a greater relevance than the concept of dharma. It has both universal reach and context specificity. Innumerable books have been written on it and the best we can do here is to merely offer the starting point for an ensuing debate. Dharma is both religion and a code of righteous conduct. V. Kutumba Sastry, relying on P.V. Kane’s monumental History of the√ Dharmas´a¯stra, in a paper titled “Semantics of Dharma” presented at a seminar at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, on Dharma: The Categorical Imperative, offered a list of meanings that invite our analytical attention. Dharma refers to the “upholder or supporter or sustainer” (Rgveda, I. 187.1 and X. 92.2); as “religious ordinances and rites” (Rgveda, I. 22.18, V. 26.6, VIII. 43.24 and IX); as “fixed principles or rules of conduct,” (Rgveda, IV, 53.3, V.63.7, VI. 70.1 and VIII. 89.5); as “merit acquired by the performance of religious rites,” (Atharva Vv√eda, XI. 9.17) and as “the whole body of religious (and moral?) duties” (Aitareya Bra¯hmana, VII. 17).

These keywords — upholder, supporter and sustainer, fixed principles, rules of conduct, merit acquired — are capacious words that need to be probed in today’s setting. What does being an “upholder and sustainer” imply? Seen from one perspective it can be read as inclusive, accommodating, ethically firm and committed to educating the other within a dialogic mode. This is because that which needs to be upheld is complex and diverse, and anything other than being accommodative would propel us into a spiralling conflict. Is accommodation of diversity then the only way of being an “upholder and sustainer”? Seen from another perspective, a narrower one, upholder is the inquisitor whose mission it is to see that there is behavioural conformity with a set of codes. Here, the upholder is the khap panchayat which believes that its diktat be strictly implemented since it is the basis of community sustainability. Similar questions can be asked of the other keywords so that the public implications of the concept of dharma can be examined for our own times. Is “fixed principles” suggestive of moral firmness, in the face of situational fluidity, a virtue to be applauded, such as Gandhi’s calling off the civil disobedience movement after policemen were killed, or does it refer to moral obstinacy such as the moral policing by the Taliban and the Shiv Sena?

Duties and ‘merit acquired’

In the list of meanings offered by Kane a new dimension is brought in by the idea that Dharma refers to “the merit acquired” by the performance of duties. This goes beyond the behavioural injunction of the other meanings and its linked consequences, to the reward that follows. What does such merit consist in? Who recognises and awards it — self or society? Is it the satisfaction that comes from promoting a public good or is it the gratification that follows the defence of a just cause? Is it the public acclaim that one receives from working for a good society or is it the social power that accrues to one who is regarded by the public as being of saintly disposition? Dharma’s time, it seems, has come for political theory in India today.

Two areas where we can begin our explorations immediately are Raj dharma and Buddhi dharma. The first entered our public discourse when Atal Bihari Vajpayee used it in 2002 although at that time its features were not extensively discussed. We thought we knew what was being referred to. In today’s world when system reform is being attempted let me dilate on three conditions of Raj dharma that the government must satisfy. The first is appointment to the council of ministers. If dharma is “merit acquired” then those who shifted to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the months preceding the election had not acquired such “merit” and hence were not eligible to be rewarded with office. This is particularly so in the case of the central civil service officers (CCS), i.e., the IAS and IPS officers who took premature retirement to contest the election. While it is right that they be given tickets and be permitted to contest as citizens, rewarding them with office would be highly disruptive of Raj dharmaregarded as the “rules of conduct.”

Civil service rules provide for a “cooling off period” for every officer. No one is exempted. This is to ensure that she acts impartially in office and does not use office for personal and partisan ends. No CCS officer can stay in a central posting indefinitely and none has the power to abrogate the rule. They must return to their less glamorous postings after the power posting term is over. There is even a maximum period for such foreign service. This is Raj dharma seen as “fixed principles or rules of conduct.” When senior CCS officers resigned prematurely and stood for election, hoping for reward after the results, since they were privy to the intelligence reports of the outcome, they threatened the entire system of impartiality. In future, such a calculus of self-promotion would become the new norm. By not rewarding them the government passed the first test of Raj dharma. It passed this test also by not rewarding technocrats and those who did not stand for election. Rajya Sabha members if they have earned merit, are eligible for office. The case of the retired Chief of the Army Staff is, however, in a grey zone since rewarding him may politicise the Army with grave implications.

Upholding impartiality

The second test of Raj dharma is the impartial pursuit of all offenders. By constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to recover the black money allegedly held by the corrupt, some in Swiss banks, it has sent out a good signal. If the creation and hoarding of black money is what has held us back as a nation, then the SIT will render a great service by identifying the offenders and prosecuting them. Will the government allow the SIT to work impartially even if its key supporters in the business community come under the SIT’s scrutiny? The government has passed the first part of the second test by constituting the SIT, Raj dharma as “upholder and sustainer and supporter.” Will it pass the second part of the second test of moral duties?

Scientific temper

The third test of Raj dharma is to respect Buddhi dharma. On this test it is early days yet. There seems to be some anxiety among the intellectual class about doing their duty and being critical of the lapses (if any) of the ruling dispensation. The sooner we all realise that Raj dharma and Buddhi dharma are consanguineous, since for a sturdy culture of Raj dharma we need a strong presence of Buddhidharma, the better it will be for India. The government must send out a strong signal that it respects the performance of Buddhi dharma. For example, the Prime Minister could make a statement that U.R. Ananthamurthy is a national institution and even when he is critical he is to be treasured. Nehru would have done this. In the absence of such a sign from Mr. Modi the pursuit of Buddhi dharma will be tentative. Public intellectuals appear today to be very cautious. Some have publicly re-examined their decades old epistemological moorings turning their back on scientific temper and secularism. This is worrisome, for either they were superficial scholars earlier or they are anxious scholars today.

The hard question that scholars must ask is: how does one respond to what one regards as superstition? Must it be challenged using all the tools available to one, from anthropology to psychology, or must one show it respect as belonging to a different meaning system from one’s own? Some scholars are now suddenly showing respect to superstition in the name of cultural relativism. Is the work of great rationalists such as Dr. Abraham Kovoor and Dr. Narendra Dabholkar all in vain? Does one remain quiet when the Taliban opposes the pulse polio campaign in the name of religion and does one remain indifferent to the many godmen (some of whom are in jail) who, claiming to offer cures, sexually exploit women by using religion? When the monsoons are poor this year, as predicted, will we recommend havans or cloud seeding? These are questions of a Nehruvian paradigm of scientific temper.

Hard questions must also be asked of those who mock what they call pseudo secularism. Are they advocating that the secular idea be abandoned, endorsing a state that is not equidistant between all religions? Do they support the idea of the state adopting the cultural practices of the majority religion because doing anything else would be appeasement of the minorities? Will Baba Ramdev’s views on homosexuality be officially adopted? Let us ask these hard questions in the true spirit of Buddhidharma. And if dharma is at the core of our Indic civilisation then we must be true to both Raj and Buddhi dharma. Is relentless questioning the dharmic way? Or is it not?

Radically reforming higher education

In spite of having immediate access to a large body of knowledge, Indians are largely consumers rather than producers of knowledge

The higher education sector in India cries out for reform. The public have flagged issues ranging from the politicisation of public institutions, a perceived lack of regulation of faculty and the desirability of creating knowledge as opposed to disseminating it. Some of these issues fall within the domain of governance; others under the ambit of regulation. As the institutions concerned vary in terms of scope and intent, it would make little sense to specify one governance structure and mechanism for all. However, there is only one regulatory body for India’s universities, the University Grants Commission (UGC). This makes it relevant to make proposals that can be implemented via this body.

Actually, a form of regulation of the faculty does exist: college lecturers are required to teach for around 16 hours a week. This must amount to at least three times the global average. It is anybody’s guess what the quality of these lectures is, given that young teachers have no time to prepare for them. Note that the suggestion of a cap on lecture hours is not motivated out of sympathy for lecturers as much as out of the concern that this mode of content delivery encourages passive attendance by students. To address this concern, tutorials should be instituted to complement lectures. This is not just to ensure that students have a second chance to comprehend difficult ideas, but to encourage them to actually communicate what they have learnt. Spoon-feeding spells the death of imagination, leaving young Indians far behind in the global race to creativity.

Faculty accountability

Much has been said about the lack of faculty accountability, especially in relation to high salaries following adoption of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission. The surest way of inculcating it would be to institute student evaluation of courses. Globally, this practice is not only routine but its results are available in the public domain. There is no case for postponing its immediate implementation in India. It is important, however, that these evaluations are treated in the right spirit. They are not meant to control the lecturer as much as instil confidence in students. They are also meant to act as an incentive to better performance. Student evaluation of courses publicly displayed is the surest way of instilling accountability among faculty. It should also be taken into account when a lecturer comes up for promotion. All this would substantially take care of the problem flagged not only of teacher absenteeism but also of the poor quality of instruction. At the same time, once teachers have taught what was expected of them, made themselves available to meet students at pre-specified times, and participated in departmental duties, they must be left to their own devices. It is not clear what public interest is served by expecting lecturers to be present all day in buildings that have no individual offices, up-to-date libraries and computers or even decent toilets.

The purpose of a university is the creation of knowledge. As Indians are generally Anglophone, they have immediate access to a very large body of knowledge, which is not the case with those located in some other parts of the global south. However, in the republic of knowledge, we are largely consumers rather than producers. This is related to our approach to knowledge creation. A few years ago, the UGC instituted a form of research evaluation based on a points system. This approach to governing knowledge creation is subsumed under the metric Academic Performance Indicator (API), a quantitative summary of a lecturer’s output. Research itself is scored on the basis of a ranking of journals in which it is published. In practice, one of two approaches appears to have been followed. In one, the faculty adopts a scheme on its own. This runs the risk of majoritarianism or of compromise, neither of which are in public interest. A second approach is based on the ranking of journals according to their “impact factor.” Impact is calculated as the number of citations of articles in a journal in relation to the number of articles published in it. It was originally created as a tool to help librarians identify journals to purchase, not as a measure of the scientific quality of research in an article. In July 2013, a group of scientists and publishers issued a statement called the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). While identifying peer-reviewed papers as central to an evaluation of research output, they argued for eliminating the use of journal-based metrics, such as the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in funding, appointment and promotion considerations. It was recommended that research ought to be assessed on its own merits rather than on the basis of the journal in which it was published. It is significant that among the original signatories of DORA was the American Association for the Advancement of Science. We need to heed this call. Quantitative scoring based on JIF may wear the garb of objectivity, and cardinality may even bring with it the comfort of transparency to some, but it cannot be a substitute for assessing knowledge creation. The long-standing practice in India had been to have research peer-reviewed and these reports considered by a committee of experts. There should be a return to this practice as it is superior to the points-based system which prejudges content and quality. Finally, in issuing a guideline for assessing research, the UGC must focus exclusively on the researcher’s contribution to knowledge and cease privileging “foreign” publications over “Indian” ones and “international” conferences over “national” ones.

As the proof of the pudding is in the eating, a recent experience is worth recounting. An internationally decorated Indian academic was recently invited by Delhi University to participate in a selection interview for lecturers. His heart sank as he observed the abilities of the first set of interviewees. However, as the day wore on, his spirits lifted, for the quality of candidates steadily improved, and a suitable candidate finally emerged. Upon enquiry, our academic was told that the candidates had been presented to the selection committee in descending order of their API! The nation looks to the UGC to address the pathetic state of its higher education sector.

An opportunity to seal a deal with Pakistan

Gradualism does not work because those who fear peace stymie it. The only way to defeat this easy subversion is to clear away the problems in one fell swoop

Prime Minister Narendra Modi thinks out of the box. He showed this in inviting his counterparts from the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) to his swearing-in. In his meetings with them, however, going by what was reported, he toed the standard line, which, on issues new to him, was both understandable and prudent. As he moves forward, though, he should review received wisdom on our neighbours, above all on Pakistan.

If the Foreign Secretaries meet only to talk about talks, they will simply mark time. We want satisfaction on terrorism before we talk on other issues, though Nawaz Sharif has made clear that Pakistan wants a dialogue that is comprehensive, even if not “composite”. There is a huge irony in this, because in the sincerest form of flattery, Pakistan has embraced our traditional position and we have appropriated theirs. For over two decades after 1971, we urged Pakistan to discuss all issues with us, while it refused without satisfaction on Kashmir. We argued that it was absurd to reduce relations between neighbours to a single issue, no matter how important, and took it as a triumph when Pakistan eventually agreed to what we dubbed the “composite dialogue”. Bizarrely, we have now disowned what we conceived and Pakistan has adopted the foundling, but as we reduce ourselves to a single issue — terrorism — we give Pakistan the excuse to revert to its own one-child policy — Kashmir.

Settlement on Kashmir

For over a decade now, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has used terrorism against India for two entirely different purposes.

The first is to derail any initiative that might lead to the peace that they dread; the attack on our Embassy in Kabul in 2008, on Mumbai later that year, on the Consulate in Herat before Mr. Sharif flew in for the inauguration, were all launched to make it hard for any Indian government to reach out to Pakistan.

The second is to derail India’s growth by targeting the cities and centres that fuel it because an economically strong India would be militarily more powerful, increasing the asymmetry with Pakistan.

Therefore, a settlement of Kashmir will not necessarily mean the end of terrorism. In fact, if Mr. Modi takes India back to pre-2009 rates of growth, terror, driven by envy, will return unless Pakistan’s civilian government gets and is given the strength to stop it. Nothing will boost its standing more than an honourable settlement on Kashmir. Such a settlement would bring the prolonged misery of the Kashmiris to an end, and is therefore as much in our interest. Assuming that it will take a couple of years for our growth to resume, there is a window of opportunity now to move forward. It is also a window that might close, for other reasons, around the same time.

From later this year, as the U.S. abandons Afghanistan, the Pakistan Army will use all its energies to get its proxies into Kabul. Over the next two years, hordes of young Pakistanis will be sent off to fight a jihad there. It is unlikely that the regime in Kabul can hold out after the last U.S. troops leave in 2016. From 2016, battle-hardened Pakistani jihadis will be in surplus to requirements in Afghanistan, and will start returning home, where neither the government nor the Army will want them, fearing that they will be the next targets. Their ISI handlers will have every incentive to send them eastwards, as they did after the Taliban takeover in the 1990s. Terrorism from Pakistan will spurt again, with the potential to disrupt relations, unless the two governments already have in place understandings that will give the government in Islamabad every incentive, and the leverage, to rein the ISI in.

We should therefore try to resolve problems now, starting with Kashmir, on which there is nothing left to negotiate. Over several years, very skilful interlocutors in the back channel have negotiated an agreement that represents the maximum that either country can concede.

Both Prime Ministers have inherited a draft which their opponents cannot object to or undermine. In Pakistan, Mr. Sharif can point out that the draft was negotiated entirely under the supervision of General Musharraf; the Corps Commanders and General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, then DG (ISI), were briefed on the broad outlines and concurred. Since the Pakistan Army claims to be the custodian of Pakistan’s security, this cannot be an agreement that in any way harms its interests.

Mr. Modi has the same safety net. This is a draft negotiated entirely by the last regime. Sanjaya Baru writes in his book that on the nuclear agreement, Dr .Manmohan Singh told former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee that he had simply completed what his predecessor had started. On Kashmir, Mr. Modi can say as much to Dr. Singh. The Congress can hardly disown its own Prime Minister’s handiwork, while other parties have no reason to be disruptive. A historic agreement can and should be sealed.

The Prime Minister will be counselled that it is best to move slowly, plucking the low-hanging fruit first. This is unwise. Gradualism does not work with Pakistan, because those who fear peace stymie it. Every tentative step will have a hurdle placed before it, usually of bodies killed by terrorists, and we will stop. The only way to defeat this easy subversion is to clear away the problems between us in one fell swoop. This means that we should settle Siachen and Sir Creek as well.

On both, settlements are feasible, and in our interest. On Siachen, our army now claims a strategic advantage in staying on the Saltoro Ridge, since it is a salient between Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and the Shaksgam Valley, which Pakistan ceded to China.

In this day and age, there are enough means to monitor the large-scale movement of troops over difficult terrain which would be essential if Pakistan tried to reoccupy the glacier or the ridge.

Human, economic benefits

Sir Creek is even more easily settled, since we now have agreed maps, jointly drawn up. Political decisions are needed on the concessions each side is prepared to make on the final alignment, which will in turn determine the shape of the maritime boundary. Settling that would bring us two important benefits, one human, the other economic: firstly, our fishermen, all from Prime Minister Modi’s State, who stray over a notional boundary, would have a clear idea of what is off bounds; the numbers rotting away in Pakistani jails would plummet. The economic gain would be that with the maritime boundary settled, the claim we have lodged with the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf would be much more easily accepted. Pakistan does not have the financial or technological means to explore the shelf and the seabed, but we do.

Finalising India’s offers on Siachen and Sir Creek should be part of the agenda for the first 100 days that Prime Minister Modi has asked for. On Kashmir, it is entirely his call. If these three issues are resolved, as they can easily be, Pakistan will have no excuse to drag its feet on any other bilateral issue. The Pakistan Army’s refuseniks will still oppose peace, but will find it increasingly hard to get its citizens to believe that India is an enemy, against which terror can be let loose.

Melting glaciers, more rain to swell Himalayan rivers

Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Salween and Mekong rivers sustain agriculture and 1.3 billion people in a dozen countries

As the climate warms, increased melting of glaciers and more rain along the Himalayas is likely to enhance the flow of water into the big rivers that arise in this vast mountain range, according to research just published.

Researchers in The Netherlands and Nepal used high-resolution modelling to study how a warmer climate would affect run-off in the Himalayas into the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Salween and Mekong rivers in the coming decades. These five rivers sustain agriculture and 1.3 billion people in a dozen countries.

There would be increased run-off into the five rivers at least until 2050, Arthur F. Lutz and his colleagues noted in a paper carried in Nature Climate Change.

As a result of rising temperature, “a decrease in glacier extent is projected for all basins.” However, the decrease in glacier area would be compensated by a higher rate of melting. Consequently, the contribution from melting glaciers to the five rivers would not change much till 2050, they noted.

“If glaciers continue to retreat, at some point in time there will be a net decrease in melt water,” remarked Mr. Lutz in a press release issued by the Utrecht University in The Netherlands.

The Indus, however, was likely to see increased run-off from accelerated melting of glaciers in the period up to 2050, according to the paper.

In the case of the other four rivers, it would be more rain along the Himalayas that swell their flow. The upper Ganges basin could see its yearly run-off growing by up to 27 per cent. In the press release from Utrecht University, the scientists emphasised that their projections were only until 2050.

New realities in the world order

While Narendra Modi’s immediate task will be to focus on bailing India out of its current economic crisis, it would be a mistake to ignore the massive shifts the world has undergone while India was caught up in election fever

Sometime in 2005, goes the story at the Indian Embassy in Beijing, the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi got in touch as he wanted to visit China and study business and investment opportunities. The Ministry of External Affairs in Delhi was cold to the idea, given the taint of the Gujarat riots of 2002, while the Embassy was unsure of what kind of protocol Mr. Modi could receive as no dignitary was available to meet him.

Mr. Modi’s reply startled them as he said his was a “study tour,” and if they wished to, they could treat it as a personal visit. Officials describe how Mr. Modi arrived a few months later, on his own, armed with only a notebook and pen. Gujarati businessmen helped open a few doors for him, but for the most part Mr. Modi travelled to state capitals and economic zones like Shenzhen, taking furious notes. At the end of his visit, Mr. Modi said that he had been struck by three things — the importance of economic diplomacy, the marvel of urban planning (his plan for the Sabarmati riverfront possibly came from here), and the fact that China was hampered most by the lack of spoken English in the country.

Driven by trade

Each of these impressions has had lasting impact on Mr. Modi, who made four official visits after the first one to China, and was even received in the Great Hall of the People in 2011. He has made it clear that his foreign policy will be driven by trade and boosting investment in India. Mr. Modi’s ideas include getting Indian States to drive investment by engaging with foreign countries directly (à la ‘Vibrant Gujarat’), having an economic officer in every Indian embassy (a hint that non-service officers and businessmen will be enlisted for the job), and a key goal, according to reports from his team, of raising India’s ranking in the World Bank’s “Ease of doing business” index from the current 134 to less than 100.

Global power structures

As Chief Minister, Mr. Modi was able to keep the focus on business in bilateral ties. In the midst of the border row with Chinese troops and the anger over stapled visas for example, he paid a visit to Beijing and Shanghai, to speak of R&D investment from Huawei and a deep sea port for Gujarat. Despite tensions at the Line of Control in July 2013, Mr. Modi had an official delegation from Pakistan to discuss solar energy projects. On visits abroad too, he has confined himself to countries where business opportunities are most viable — China, Japan, Israel, Singapore and Australia. But for America’s visa ban, the United States would undoubtedly have been high on that list. The new External Affairs Minister, Sushma Swaraj, has certainly taken the same cues from here. As she kicks off her bilateral meetings with a visit from Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi this weekend, she has yet to confirm whether she will give any time to the U.S. Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs, Nisha Desai Biswal, at the same time.

However, while Mr. Modi’s task will be to focus on bailing India out of its current economic crisis, it would be a mistake to ignore the massive shifts the world has undergone while India was caught up in election fever — to begin with, the situation in Ukraine, a lightning rod for what is now called “Cold War 2.0” between the U.S. and Russia. While the unrest in the country may ease up after the presidential elections, and the impending withdrawal of Russian troops from the Ukraine border, there are even more far-reaching consequences for the new Indian administration to study. Russia’s annexation of Crimea has not only changed the map in the most dramatic way possible, but has also changed power structures in the world, with Russian President Vladimir Putin gaining the upper hand. In their campaign against Russia at the U.N., U.S. and European Union officials have warned that Mr. Putin’s actions hold a dangerous precedent for India too, especially when it comes to possible designs by China on parts of Arunachal Pradesh. Conversely, the actions of western diplomats and U.S. non-governmental organisations in Ukraine, who openly supported anti-Russian protesters to oust their government while attempting to pull Ukraine into the EU, is also a dangerous precedent for the world. Mr. Modi will face his first look at all these new realities in mid-July, when he meets Mr. Putin at the BRICS summit in Brazil, and when the world, especially the U.S. and EU countries, will be watching his statements.

BRICS Summit

The BRICS summit will also be an occasion for Mr. Modi to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping, and set the course for India-China ties. Chinese think tanks and newspapers have hailed Mr. Modi’s electoral victory, and chosen to downplay his campaign speech on China’s “expansionist mindset.” Yet, China’s actions in the South China Sea in the past few months will be, like Crimea, another talking point in Brazil. The latest stand-off has been sparked by China building an oil rig in waters that Vietnam lays claim to. Tensions have also been building with Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam over China’s increasing claims on airspace and maritime boundaries in the region. For its part, India has resisted joining the argument. But once again, the world will be scrutinising the interactions between Mr. Modi and Mr. Xi, more so Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo¯ Abe, who has welcomed Mr. Modi to Japan in the past and made glowing references to him in the just concluded “Shangri-La” Dialogue conducted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in Singapore. When Mr. Abe won his 2012 election, Mr. Modi was one of the first to congratulate him. Mr. Abe even follows Mr. Modi on Twitter (significant because Mr. Abe only follows three accounts). The two leaders spoke for 15 minutes when Mr. Abe called to return the greetings on Mr. Modi’s win. It will be important to see how he balances Japan’s concerns with his own old relationship with the Chinese leadership.

Perhaps the most significant discussion at the BRICS summit, however, will be over West Asia, and nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers (the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China and Russia) that hope to reach some conclusion in July. If the talks succeed, it could rewrite history, given the far-reaching consequences on the oil economy, nuclear energy and Arab-Persian rivalry in a region that houses and employs six million Indians. The talks so far have been ignored in the din of the election, but repercussions, including the anger of U.S. allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, will have an impact on South Asia as well.

Finally, there are all the significant developments in India’s neighbourhood — Afghanistan’s historic elections that will possibly confirm front runner Dr. Abdullah Abdullah’s victory in June; Pakistan’s talks with the Taliban, and the rise in attacks on the media.

Inviting all South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) leaders to Mr. Modi’s swearing-in is certainly a nice touch to start with, and hopefully heralds India’s re-engagement with a world it has effectively shut out during nine months of what has perhaps been its longest campaign. For Mr. Modi, unlike his experience of 2005, the welcome mat is no longer a problem, but the new Indian Prime Minister may want to keep that notebook and pen handy as he sets out to deal with new realities in the world order.