Introduction

As of 2016, the five BRICS countries represent over 3 billion people, or 42% of the world population. All five members in BRICS are in the top 25 of the world by population, and four are in the top 10. China is now the ‘factory of the world’ and has risen to become the world’s second largest economy. Brazil is a major exporter of myriad natural resources. Being a leader in defence manufacturing, petroleum products and  permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Russia holds an enviable position in global affairs. South Africa is seen as a gateway to the African continent. As the fastest growing economy, India is now the most sought after destination for foreign investors;  its domestic market has recently joined the consumption bandwagon, paving the way for a robust  future. BRICS has become a near universal financial term. Jim O’Neill  could not have been more accurate with the prediction he made in 2001.

While all these countries have enjoyed phenomenal growth (China since the 1980s and all of them from the beginning of this millennium), there is another aspect of governance that affects BRICS: the curse of stark inequality in BRICS’ societies. Economic growth alone has failed to eliminate poverty. Crash in prices of natural resources has unleashed a crisis in Russia and Brazil. China is grappling with a slowdown for the first time in three decades and its debt problem could lead the next cycle of global economic recession. This puts at the risk the future of a billion plus people who are on the brink of poverty. However, India appears to be an outlier. This article throws light on the holistic efforts undertaken by India to ensure inclusive growth.

India’s economic liberalisation began 25 years ago owing to the extraordinary leadership skills of the then Prime Minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao. He unleashed market linked reforms and reduced the power of the state despite strong opposition within his own party. A decade down the line, Atal Behari Vajpayee as the Prime Minister undertook sector wise reforms, from telecom to infrastructure. This enabled India’s growth, spearheaded by forces of financial, technological and trade globalisation. India’s corporate sector rose up to the challenge and took on global giants, even acquiring assets in developed economies. As a result, a strong middle class emerged in the country. With the growth in revenues, governments introduced several pro-poor schemes. In 2014, Narendra Modi won the General Elections with a promise of running an administration that cares for the interests of both rich and  poor alike. ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas’ was the election slogan. The effort has been to plan and implement welfare schemes efficiently. This presents interesting lessons in inclusive growth and sustainable development for the societies and economies of BRICS countries.

J-A-M Trinity

One of the most important aspects of development is financial inclusion. A cash economy hurts the poor the most. For masses to reap the benefits of economic growth, access to formal banking is an absolute necessity. India embarked on achieving this via bank nationalisation in 1969, but the goal of a bank account for all has been achieved only now in 2016.

Financial inclusion was attempted through a targeted drive by the Union Government under the banner of ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana’. The task was to enrol 75 million households under the ambit of formal banking. The bank accounts opened under this scheme came with a zero balance facility, a life insurance cover and a debit card. This meant that people at the bottom of the economic pyramid – micro entrepreneurs and daily wage labourers – could safely deposit their money, avail government schemes and apply for a loan at a lower interest rate than charged by local money-lenders. Also, the Accidental Insurance Cover at a cost of 1 Rupee a month comes across as a major safety net for the poor. Beginning with near zero deposits in ‘Jan Dhan’ accounts, in May 2016, India had around $6 Billion in these accounts.

The second initiative towards financial inclusion was ‘AADHAR’, a Unique Identity Number and Card that contained all the details of every resident of India. Aadhar was started in 2009 under the leadership of Ex-CEO of Infosys, Nandan Nilenkani, who was keen on harnessing technology for socio-economic development. Having understood its importance, the Government, in 2016, legislated it as an Act, thereby granting it legal sanctity. The Act itself is named ‘THE AADHAAR (TARGETED DELIVERY OF FINANCIAL AND OTHER SUBSIDIES, BENEFITS AND SERVICES) ACT’. With a fool-proof identification system in place, the Government has begun to seamlessly transfer subsidies directly into the bank accounts of beneficiaries. The distribution of LPG Cylinder subsidy is now completely on this platform. Prime Minister Modi even made a clarion call to rich/middle-class people to give up that subsidy. Millions responded positively. These efforts have resulted in annual saving of more than $2 Billion for the Government .

The third pillar of growth has been ‘Mobile’. There are close to a billion active mobile connections in India. Tele-density is over 80%. Around 400 Million people are already using internet on mobile. Half of them use it on smart phones. These statistics reveal the plethora of opportunities for achieving financial inclusion and e-governance. National Payments Corporation of India has developed Unified Payments Interface which  would take the power of smart phones to its next level, making instant money transfers an every-minute possibility. Moreover, many start-ups are building financial products specifically aimed at the lower middle class and the poor. Whether it is through keeping gold as  collateral or assessing the credit worthiness of a customer using digital data, millions at the bottom of the pyramid are being provided with timely finance by private lenders swiftly and at affordable rates. The Reserve Bank of India has also granted license for Payments Bank. No surprises that PayTM, a mobile wallet platform, has usurped the market.

With majority of people in formal banking system and the power of technology, India is in a position to go ahead with Direct Cash Transfer across a host of sectors and regions. With subsidies  costing around 3% of the GDP, and historically billions being lost to corruption, J-A-M is setting the foundation for a robust future.

Agriculture

Since independence, agriculture was subjected to the most minimal reforms. While cruising on the backbone of growth in manufacturing and services, governments generally neglected agriculture. Over 50% of India’s population is dependent on a sector that  contributes just around 16% of the GDP. To overcome the problems, the Finance Minister in the  Union Budget for the year 2016-17 assured to double agriculture income by 2022. A slew of measures have been initiated.

First, Minimum Support Prices are being increased each year. This is a major incentive. Secondly, for products which government does  not procure, farmers have been given direct access to consumers by doing away with the compulsion to sells their produce via controlled  markets only. This has resulted in higher earnings for the farmers and lower prices for the consumers. Third, insurance for crops have been introduced at bare minimum prices. Fourth, irrigation facilities have been expanded. With many states in the country being drought prone, crop insurance and better irrigation are extremely important for marginal farmers. Finally, network of cold storage units have been strengthened, allowing farmers to store their produce and sell at opportune times.

These measures have been supplemented with the use of technology. Updates on weather and crop prices help farmers to make informed choices. With a normal monsoon this year, Indian farmers are already staring at a bumper harvest. Most importantly, the sowing of pulses has increased at a staggering rate. This proves that incentives and information provided by the government are working, and will further reduce inflation.

Micro and Small Medium Enterprises

There are around 58 Million Micro Enterprises in India. They along with the informal sector generate 9 out of every 10 jobs. Yet, they were denied credit by mainstream banks. Hence, the government introduced the MUDRA Bank. While ‘Banking for the Unbanked’ was achieved through ‘Jan Dhan’, MUDRA Bank was about ‘Funding the Unfunded’. A “Made in India” innovation for funding micro business, it registers, regulates and refinances all small business finance institutions. With close to $20 Billion being disbursed each year to small entrepreneurs and self employed, MUDRA Bank is unleashing inclusive growth better than anything  else .

Labour

India has the unenviable task of improving the status of present workers and generating 500 million jobs over the next decade. The government is using a multi-pronged approach to achieve the targets. Firstly, it has emphasised  the need for growth in the manufacturing sector in the GDP through ‘Make in India’. While promoting Indian entrepreneurs to grow, MNCs are also being lured to invest in India and transfer technology. Secondly, a separate Skill Development Ministry has been formed to facilitate the training of a million plus youth each year. All types of skills and trades are being encouraged. Third, workers in the informal sector are being ushered in to a safety net through voluntary pension and healthcare schemes. Fourthly, apprenticeships are being pushed in the corporate sector.

Slowly, yet steadily, draconian labour laws are being amended to enable the creation of enterprises that employ hundreds of workers in a single unit. For decades, India has been home to millions of companies that are merely dwarfs.

Infrastructure

When the new regime took over in 2014, 18000+ villages in India were yet to experience electricity. So far almost 25% of those villages have received power and by 2020 every home in the country  would get electricity. Rural roads are being laid at a fast-pace alongside the network of national highways. Railway services are being extended to the remotest part of the country. The number of trains and their speed is being systematically increased.

With close to 40% of the population now living in urban areas, housing for poor remains a concern. It is being addressed through large scale affordable real estate development subsidised by the government. Also, through the new Land Acquisition Policy, owners are compensated with at least 3 times the market price by the government. This trade-off gives the state land for infrastructure development and earns a hefty sum to those who wish to exit agriculture.

The government is ushering in a bottom-up revolution rather than simply pursuing the easier top-down approach. Prime Minister Modi has stated on record that he does  not follow any particular economic ideology and has made pragmatism the mantra  of his regime. This means that the  government is ready to accept suggestions from all sections of the intellectual spectrum and pursues policies because it benefits the masses. For inclusive growth, this ideological flexibility is an absolute necessity.

India and BRICS

When BRICS was first conceptualised as a bloc that would lead the global economic growth march, and subsequently became a multilateral platform for cooperation across sectors, it seemed natural for India to be a part of it. With each country in the group, India shared a strong bond already. India borrowed the idea of socialism from erstwhile Soviet Union. Over the years it became a major supplier of defence products. Despite being a founder of NAM, India tilted towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Close ties with Russia have continued. Brazil  is a gateway to Latin America.

China being a neighbour became an inseparable part of national discourse in India. Its miraculous growth led to a deluge of manufactured goods exports to India. Though miniscule in comparison, India in turn exported natural resources such as iron ore to support the massive infrastructural development in China. Cricket, Commonwealth, Migration, Trade, Sea-Route and the message of peace championed by Gandhi-Mandela have strengthened India-South Africa relations ever since independence.

With the  growth of internet and global capital flows, India’s ties with BRICS blossomed. India’s trade with China stands at $60 Billion Dollars, second only to the United States which is at about $100 Billion Dollars. Even though the ‘Make in India’ campaign seeks to change the dynamics, as of now almost every smart phone bought in India is manufactured in China. Chinese exports of products, ranging from steel to firecrackers, at ultra-cheap rates are a cause of major concern for Indian policymakers and corporates. In the case of Brazil, the growth is significant. Major Indian multinationals such as Infosys, Wipro, Mahindra, Birla Corp, Reliance Industries, etc have set up base in the country. India is now gaining confidence that it can do business in Latin America, courtesy the success in Brazil. There are similar story repeats in the case of South Africa and Russia.

The relations between India and the other countries of BRICS do not stop at trade and business. There is the governance and people angle as well. Tourism is rising at an exponential rate  between the countries. Russia, South Africa and China are today favoured destinations for Indians. The drastic fall in air fares and increased connectivity via  West Asia is enabling Indians to consider travelling to Brazil for leisure. It is reciprocated by growth in tourists visiting India as well. At the same time, inter-governmental coordination is improving. China presents a role-model for development of infrastructure, especially in urban areas. India’s Smart-City Mission is relying heavily on the Chinese success stories. So is the case  with the ease of doing business. And the learning is quick. India saw the fastest rise among BRICS nations in WEF’s latest Global Competiveness Index. ‘Bolsa Familia’ and other similar programs in Brazil were used to make a case for cash transfers in India. Sportsis another area of cooperation gaining attention.

Finally, China and Russia being permanent members of UNSC, and significant geo-political powers individually, India has used the BRICS platform to further its cause on important matters such as the Anti-Terrorism agenda and nuclear policies. India’s attempt to lead the Climate Change negotiations and International Solar Alliance too gathered momentum owing to its presence in BRICS. India also won the right to Presidency for the first six years of BRICS New Development Bank, signalling a major shift in global economic diplomacy.

Conclusion

Questions will be raised as to how India sets an example in ensuring inclusive growth when its per-capita income is significantly less than the rest of BRICS and it still grapples with a lot of challenges. The answer is in the foundation of the success of BRICS nations. Russia’s per-capita income rose 10 times in the decade beginning 2000. This was possible solely on account of oil exports. With oil prices  falling to levels below $50, it spells doomsday for the Russian economy. Despite not having nurtured globally competitive manufacturing companies, Russia boasts of a high number of billionaires. Similar story repeats itself with Brazil which grew due to boom in prices of all natural resources. Today it is experiencing political crisis and inflation is unsustainably high.

Leaders of both the countries assumed that the boom would continue forever and framed welfare policies accordingly. The macro-economic uncertainty  hits the poor people the hardest. ANC’s vote share in local elections in South Africa was the lowest since the end of Apartheid. This is a sign of growing disenchantment with the government on account of unsatisfactory economic performance.

China’s story though has been miraculous. Thirty years of consistent boom in the economy is a new benchmark in economic growth. However, it has been led by a Communist State which does  not believe in transparency. As a result, no foreign agency can certify its financial health. China has always spent its way out of misery. This is no longer possible as excess infrastructure expenditure has led to creation of ghost cities. Rising wages are prompting investors to relocate factories elsewhere. Inflation and unemployment can lead to social unrest. When China’s authentic debt data is published, it could spiral into another global crisis. China cannot take its growth for granted anymore.

This is where India is different. Macroeconomic stability is of utmost importance to the Government. There is every effort being made to efficiently deliver welfare schemes. Even though social sector spending is humongous, the fiscal deficit is under  control. Government and central bank have together successfully tamed inflation. Private as well the public sectors are strong. Regulations of the financial markets are based on global standards, thus ensuring credibility. Domestic market demand makes up for the dip in export, if any. All sectors of the economy are being promoted, be it agriculture or services.

These measures mean India’s economic growth can be sustained at a high level for decades and that growth would be inclusive. With per-capita income just around $2000, the potential for the future is tremendous. India is celebrating 25 years of reforms and is preparing ground for further liberalisation. It is not basking in the limelight of past successes alone.

Untiring efforts are being put to improve our performance on ease of doing business, competitiveness, innovation, reducing corruption, etc. If BRICS has to be sustained for long, the countries would have to recognise the strengths of their society and economy; rather than being forever dependent purely on foreign factors for growth. This is a new India’s story.

*The author is Officer on Special Duty (Investment Promotion Board) to the Chief Minister of Goa.

This is an adapted excerpt of a talk delivered at the One Day national Seminar on ‘Brick-Upon-Brick, For a Stronger ‘BRICS’: Challenges and Opportunities’, hosted by the Centre for Latin  American Studies, Goa University with the International Centre, Goa, August 12, 2016

In the last two decades, China has focused strategically on water politics vis-à-vis its economy. With its rapid population growth and consumption, China has become the world’s largest bottled water consumer and a major producer. With a per capita consumption 19% lower than the global average, the market is expected to continue to grow.

Its other water needs are also significant, of course, both to keep pace with industrialization and for strategic reasons. In this context, China had built one of biggest gravity dams on the upper stream of the Brahmaputra River (Yarlung Zangbo) in Tibet, the US$15 billion Zam (or Zangmu) Hydropower Station. The dam, considered to be the world’s highest-altitude hydropower station and the largest of its kind, is set to generate2.5 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year.

Located in the Gyaca County, the Yarlung Zangbo River flows 1625km in Tibet, before entering Arunachal Pradesh, where it is known as the Sinag. Further down, the Sinag, after its confluence with the Dibang and Lohit, is known as the Brahmaputra, which continues to flow into Bangladesh.

China was mum about the details of the project in the initial stages. In the year 2010, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi officially revealed that China is building a dam on the river, but extended the assurance that it would not have any impact on the river’s downstream flow into Northeast India. But there is no water sharing agreement between India and China currently and nor is one on the horizon.

China is the region’s “upstream superpower”—more than two-thirds of the 40 major transboundary rivers that flow through China and 16 other countries originate in China. To balance between upstream and downstream interests, the UN General Assembly on 21 May, 1997 adopted the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (with China voting against it). The convention commits state parties to the utilization of transbounday rivers in “an equitable and reasonable manner” and require them to take “all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant harm” to co-riparians, presently constituting large parts of Tibet, Northeastern India, Bangladesh and Mekong region countries.

China’s aggression in the Upper Mekong is also creating animosity among countries in the region. Amid the escalation of threat to peace and stability in the Mekong region, China has been willing to cooperate with Southeast Asian countries and has signed bilateral agreements with a number of co-riparians. It has not been as forthcoming with India on the Brahmaputra. This is likely an outcome of historical animosity, pre-existing territorial disputes and the fact that it now views India as a rival for regional superpower status. Potential conflicts between India and China are likely to centre on a “war over natural resources,” with the Asian giant eyeing dominance of the “Third Pole.”

Already, China’s upstream claim over the Brahmaputra has emerged as a threat to the environment, putting into jeopardy the livelihood of millions downstream. The non-existence of a water-sharing agreement with China strategically also challenges India’s claim on parts of Arunachal. In recent years, the idea of hydropower as clean energy, though highly debatable, has dramatically changed the politics of dam-building in region. The hydropower dams proposed by China include the world’s last free-flowing rivers in southwest China—including sources of major water resources in Asia. These projects threaten the fragile ecosystem, wetlands and protected forests.

China’s upstream hydropower dams will adversely affect the livelihoods of people who are depending on water commons for small-scale fishing and subsistence agriculture. The implications of the dams on the water ecosystem Environmental degradation through its blocking of sediment-borne nutrients will surely have a negative impact on traditional Himalayan agriculture. Also, the ecosystem in the waters is also disturbed, dramatically affecting the life-cycle of high altitude fish species. It is notable that in the most of these regions, fish is a major source of caloric intake, which means that rural food security in Northeast India, Bangladesh and Southeast Asia may be compromised.

Tempa Gyaltsen, a researcher at Tibet Policy Institute, Central Tibetan Administration said, “Zangmu Hydropower Dam on Brahmaputra river at a strategically important location, Lianghekou Damn on Yalong river and the under construction Suwalong dam on Salween and Mekong rivers are already affecting life and economy of millions of people in the downstream countries.” Noting that India’s water demand per capita is likely increase to 1.5 trillion cubic meters from 740 billion cubic meters currently, he emphasized that a water treaty is essential. “China would not hesitate [in using water as a weapon] that against India. That’s another major reason for the downstream countries of the 10 Tibetan rivers to come together and force China into a water treaty.”

Prof Milap Chandra Sharma, a glaciologist at JNU, has also pointed out: “Besides having environmental issues those dams in Tibet can be disastrous for us. They can unleash their fury during earthquake, accidents or by intentional destruction can easily be used against India during war.” Interestingly, the Sichuan earthquake of 2008, which killed more than 80,000 people, has been linked by some experts to the Zipingpu dam, which may have triggered it.

Climate change is showing its impact we now need to aim for sustainability rather than unchecked growth. Preserving rivers and ecosystems that support low carbon-intensive livelihoods of rural populations need to part of our mitigation efforts.

India is leading in clean energy by signing the International Solar Alliance at CoP21 climate Conference at Paris. Two years ago, the result of general elections 2014 in India revived hope in industrialists and global business market. Once again the share market shows the increase in stock exchange and able to attract the Wall Street attention. Then Bharatiya Janata Party Prime Ministerial candidate Shri Narendra Modi pitched for inclusive development with concern over the environment. While at the inauguration of a solar power project in Neemuch in Madhya Pradesh, he said, “With the country having so much natural resources, India hasn’t progressed much in the 21st century”. India’s development was compromised by mismanagement of the country’s natural resources as a result of Energy Security. Working on his strategy for the energy sector, Modi government is working on clean energy focusing on harnessing coal, gas, hydropower, solar energy, biomass, nuclear, and wind power to bring about an “energy revolution” in the country.

India’s national action plan on climate change recommends that the country generates 10 percent of its power produced from alternative sources of energy like solar, wind, hydropower, and other renewable sources by 2015, and 15 percent by 2020 through energy project studies. India has an installed power generation capacity of 2,27,356.73 megawatt (MW), of which 12.4 percent, or 28,184.35MW, is renewable energy. There is a big gap between service and production, drawing comparisons between different regions of the country and the energy shortage. Modi said that while there was darkness on one side, 20,000MW of capacity was lying idle on the other.

Previous governments failed to fulfil the demand for power generation that is the non-availability of sufficient coal and gas in the country as a reason behind power capacity lying idle. Gas-fuelled power projects with an aggregate capacity of 8,000MW that are close to commissioning and another 1,500MW that have been already commissioned have been stranded in the absence of gas. Lack of governance and mismanagement become the main reason for the government’s inability to utilise existing resources. In addition, another 18,000MW capacity is operating at a plant load factor (PLF) of 20 percent. PLF is a measure of average capacity utilisation. The power projects require 102.61 million standard cubic meters per day (mscmd) of gas. “If we want to industrialise, electricity is the first necessity,” said Modi.

India needs a vision for the grid base power production, need to identify the location to optimise the power production with location specification. With the eastern part of the country rich in water resources, it is a heaven for hydropower generation; also our coasts are fit for wind energy. Similarly, the plains of Gujarat and Rajasthan are fit for solar energy generation, which have sufficient heat influx. If the policy planners had thought about these factors and formed a policy, then India wouldn’t be so dependent on energy imports. As per recent studies, India’s energy demand is expected to more than double by 2035, from less than 700 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe) today, to around 1,500 mtoe. According to the oil ministry’s estimate, India, which is highly dependent on imports to meet its energy demand, has an energy import bill of $150 billion. This is expected to reach $300 billion by 2030, requiring a $3.6 trillion payout by 2030.

India’s current account deficit (CAD) has increased because of coal imports. The then Finance Minister P. Chidambaram had earlier said India plans to restrict its CAD to $50 billion in the year ending 31 March. For the last fiscal, CAD was at $88 billion, with total imports worth $491 billion and oil imports ballooning to $164 billion. But the major issue was proper management and a new policy framework to manage resources to harness it. If India needs to become self-sufficient we will have to become energy independent. Electricity is an important factor. India is the world’s fourth-largest energy consuming nation and imports 80 percent of its crude oil and 18 percent of its natural gas requirements. The country trails the US, China, and Russia, accounting for 4.4 percent of global energy consumption.

Emerging Energy Landscape Politics

The world has witnessed many wars over natural resources. Geopolitics over resources was always centric to foreign policy of any country. Famous Gulf War is one of such example where war waged by coalition forces from 34 nations led by the United States against Iraq in response to Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait. The recent Russian incursion into Ukraine is another example of the changing landscape of energy security across the world.

Recently, China and Russia signed a natural gas deal under which the Russian oil giant Gazprom will supply China’s largest oil company—China National Petroleum Corp.—38 billion cubic metres of gas every year for the next 30 years, beginning 2018. The deal is worth $400 billion and is the largest contract of its kind in Russia’s history. The importance of the deal transcends its monetary terms and the volume of the commodity sought to be exchanged under it. It not only points towards the tectonic shifts taking place in the global energy landscape but also brings into sharp focus India’s continuing ineptitude at securing its energy future. It is instructive to note how the deal came about to understand where India falls short. The deal was stuck in the past decade, largely on the issue of pricing. Russia was used to getting paid better, by its steady European customers, than what China was willing to shell out.

When it comes to securing such international deals, it is never as simple as paying for the gas. Indeed, it is the whole bouquet of services that a customer can provide. As a result, China has been able to develop a well-diversified energy sourcing portfolio. Compare that to India’s embarrassing past at sewing up deals and our growing dependence on imports. Myanmar is perhaps the most outstanding example. For years, India helped Myanmar to explore its gas reserves. This was the costly bit. Obviously, the idea was to get the gas, through a pipeline, to India. From the very beginning, it was a matter of energy security, not financial gain. As things turned out, India’s foreign policy was not in sync with its energy interests. India dropped the ball and as a result, China, the late entrant, now has cornered the gas through a pipeline, which became operational in 2013.

To add insult to injury, Indian Navratna company—Oil and Natural Gas Corp. (ONGC)—is actually involved in building the pipeline to China. Another, more recent example of such slippages is Kazakhstan, where India lost out energy contracts despite bidding higher than China. The story is the same when one looks at the India-China race for resources in Africa as well. So what should India do? There are two ways to look at the Russia-China deal. One way would be to say that in any case, this gas could not have come to India through a pipeline. Our western border is too troubled and unstable and the Himalayan range makes it impossible in the north and east. While this is true, it would be missing the larger lesson. The right way to look at it is to realise that India urgently needs an energy security doctrine. India is the fourth largest energy consumer in the world and its import dependence is expected to grow to 50 percent of its total demand by 2030. India’s foreign policy must aggressively push to secure long-term and stable supply of energy.

Thankfully, the global geopolitics rearrangement also gives India some hope. With the US and Europe growing more capable of supplying their own fuel, India can turn to the Middle East and African countries, as they look for newer customers. However, we should reframe our energy security policy in accordance with the changing geopolitical energy landscape.

India is trying to emerge as self-sufficient in the Power sector to boost its economy. Economists across the world are looking at India as a big market, but only available resources and power production can’t bring India’s economy on track. We have to also look towards securing our future demand to meet with economic development, but the same time environmental concerns and sustaining our environment for future generation also a big concern.

There is debate over environment versus development, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi asserts his promise for Bharatiya Chintan of Samagra Vikas and said, “If we don’t protect the environment then development will be in danger. Environment-friendly development desires a non-renewable form of energy generation.” India urgently needs an energy security doctrine. Its foreign policy must aggressively push to secure long-term and stable supply of energy.

Reports in the recent past examine the transformation underway in the global energy system, and highlight that substantial new approaches are needed to decarbonise the global economy as the electricity sector accounts for more than 40 percent of man-made (combustion related) CO2 emissions today. The renewable energy technology is sufficiently mature, and the economics favourable to offer a viable climate change solution. Can this new energy system be a win-win situation?

This article first appeared in the editorial of The Millennium Post.

The writer is Senior Research Fellow at India Foundation, an independent think tank. Views are strictly personal.

A week after India announced the success of its “surgical strikes” against terrorist launch pads across the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir, contrarian voices are beginning to be heard. Some of these have taken inspiration from the Pakistan government, which maintains that the “surgical strikes” were, in effect, routine cross-border firing and that, at most, there were only three or so casualties. The attempt to seriously downplay the claims of the Indian army is understandable. Pakistan cannot readily admit, officially at least, that it hosts facilities for armed jihadis to cross the LoC and attack India. Neither, for that matter, can its army afford to lose face by admitting that the enemy crossed the LoC and delivered a few carefully directed blows. No wonder Islamabad’s complaint to the United Nations lacked any real sincerity and was more for the record.

Pakistan’s predicament is understandable, not least because it doesn’t want the issue of cross-border terrorism to attract too much international scrutiny. Less understandable is some of the tut-tutting inside India. The Congress, for example, has spoken in two voices. On the one hand, it was quick to rally behind the government after the initial announcement, while making it clear that the cross-LoC raids weren’t unprecedented. However, once it was evident that the “surgical strikes” were also accruing political dividends for the prime minister, Narendra Modi, and the Bharatiya Janata Party, it fell back on a demand to seek “substantive proof” that the raids were indeed as audacious as the official machinery claimed.

The Congress hasn’t made the same mistake it did in 1999 when its spokesmen – Kapil Sibal, in particular – made unending carping noises at the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government during the Kargil conflict. However, it clearly wasn’t happy endorsing the Modi government, particularly since there was an implication that the response of the two United Progressive Alliance governments to Pakistan-sponsored acts of terror – including the carnage in Mumbai in 2008 – lacked sufficient teeth. Consequently, the Congress has willy-nilly attached itself to that section of the media and political class which is both sceptical of the veracity of the “surgical strikes” and critical of its so-called politicization for partisan ends. This position has nothing to do with a predetermined policy towards Pakistan and anti-terrorism. In the interregnum between the attack on the army camp at Uri and the retaliation across the LoC, the government was constantly taunted by its critics for not managing a sufficiently muscular response. Modi’s speech to the BJP gathering in Kozhikode, for example, was widely debunked as empty grandstanding. Indeed, The Telegraph, in a misjudged bout of even-handedness, attached greater importance to an interview with the Pakistan high commissioner to India than to Modi’s speech to his party. Yet, when machismo was in evidence with the raids across the LoC, there was criticism of Modi for war-mongering and even nudging India towards a nuclear war with Pakistan. Today, even the reality of the “surgical strikes” is being questioned as India gradually reverts to competitive politics-as-usual.

Inconsistency is a charge that can quite legitimately be made against governments in the conduct of international relations, and more so if it involves a measure of armed conflict. Israel, for example, has acquired a formidable global reputation for its low threshold of tolerance to terror attacks. Yet, its tactical approach has been marked by considerable flexibility, even in the matter of negotiating with terror groups for the exchange of prisoners. And while it is never averse to cross-border retaliation, the timing of these exercises is governed by circumstances. Indeed, steely determination (that includes unrelenting vigilance) coupled with patience has been the hallmark of Israel’s fight against asymmetric warfare and terrorism.

As a people, Hindus have rarely displayed exemplary resolve, and this casualness has often intruded into national security. The strategic doctrine of Pakistan has, since its formation in 1947, been crafted with a blend of tactical opportunism and unwavering hostility towards India. The hostility is based on a wariness of Hindus and a fear that India will stop at nothing to hobble Pakistan. The memories of the 1971 humiliation and the loss of East Pakistan still rankle the establishment in Pakistan, both civilian and military, and have added to its determination to carry the fight into India, with Kashmir as a permanent point of friction. India’s response has, alas, never been as consistent.

While it is true that Indira Gandhi capitalized on the Pakistan military’s colossal mishandling of East Pakistan’s struggle for regional autonomy to pave the way for the creation of Bangladesh, it was the army crackdown on the Awami League in March 1971 that created the grand opening. Yet, even after the victory, India fell back on magnanimity during the Simla talks of 1972. Having been persuaded by her own advisers not to recreate another Treaty of Versailles, Indira Gandhi gave Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto a face-saver on Kashmir. While the Simla Agreement has certainly prevented the dispute from being internationalized, it has not stopped Pakistan from believing that this unfinished task of Partition is pending. India’s commitment to a stable, united and democratic Pakistan is unquestionably noble, but that hand of friendship has never been truly reciprocated. From encouraging the Khalistan movement to organizing periodic jihads in the Kashmir Valley, not to mention nurturing Islamist terrorism in the rest of India, Pakistan has taken advantage of its proximity to the West to keep the heat on India. The odd bouts of bonhomie that Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif also partnered have invariably been woefully short-lived. A policy of reasonableness (if not friendship) towards India, it would seem, lacks social and political sanction in Pakistan.

On his part, Modi began his innings with a belief that he could do business with Nawaz Sharif. That optimism suffered a reality check with Pathankot, Uri and the Kashmir troubles. Consequently, he has recalibrated India’s response to a difficult neighbour. Diplomatically, he has enlarged a bilateral dispute into one that also embraces the misgivings Bangladesh and Afghanistan have regarding Pakistan. The cancellation of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation summit in Islamabad marks a foreign policy departure. India has also signalled its intention to keep all options open on the longevity of the Indus Waters Treaty. Second, Modi has opened up a new front by announcing India’s solidarity with the movement for an independent Balochistan. India has let it be known that it will exploit all the fault lines in Pakistan to its benefit, just as Islamabad has been doing for many decades inside India. Finally, Modi has for all practical purposes junked the doctrine of strategic restraint that, unfortunately, Pakistan misread as evidence of India’s own shortcomings.

Pakistan and, for that matter, a section of India’s political class have often believed that anti-Pakistan moves must necessarily be tempered for fear that they could create complications within the large Muslim minority. I believe this wariness was unfounded because many of the emotional links of India’s Muslims with Pakistan were blunted after 1971. If there is a pro-Pakistan lobby, it exists only among the separatists in the Kashmir Valley. In any case, not being electorally dependant on any substantial Muslim support, Modi enjoys much greater elbow room than his Congress predecessors. Perhaps Pakistan knows this too and may recalibrate its India policy accordingly.

After the “surgical strikes”, India and Pakistan are on the cusp of a new phase in their undeclared war. How this will shape out depends quite significantly on how Islamabad digests the new Indian approach.

This article first appeared in TheTelegraph.

Swapan Dasgupta is the Director of India Foundation. Views expressed are his own.

… and a different government in India — that’s what Pakistan didn’t realise until yesterday

In the last two years, the Indian army has repeatedly foiled attempts by Pakistan-sponsored terrorist groups to infiltrate into India. Ninety-seven terrorists were gunned down in 2015, of whom 59 were Pakistanis. The number has crossed 110 in the last eight months. Again 84 of them were of Pakistani origin. At least 17 attempts by the infiltrators were foiled by the army in the last eight months.

As is said, the terrorist has to be lucky just once, whereas the security forces have to be lucky every time. Despite best efforts by our security forces, the country couldn’t escape a couple of incidents of terror, at Pathankot and Uri. The important point to bear in mind is that at a time when terror has struck many European and American cities, India has largely remained terror-free in the last couple of years. It is a well known fact that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made sincere and genuine efforts to convince the neighbour of the futility of supporting, sponsoring and launching terror. He has met Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif a couple of times in the last two years. He made an impromptu visit to Lahore on his way back from Kabul. The two prime ministers met in Russia and decided to have a three-tier dialogue process set in motion between the two countries.

But then came the infamous Pathankot attack, where the Pakistani terrorists had succeeded in penetrating into the Indian Air Force base and held on for close to 72 hours, until they were neutralised. Pathankot was the first major terror challenge thrown at PM Modi by Pakistan. The Indian government had tried one last time to deal with it in the conventional manner. It went so far as to even allow Pakistani investigators access to parts of the attack site.

Despite the Indian government’s overtures, Pakistan remained a nation committed to terror, lies and denial. Sadly, it allowed an olive branch extended by PM Modi to lapse. It didn’t realise that it was dealing with a different leader and a different government. Pathankot and the aftermath was the proverbial last nail. Any further misadventure from Pakistan was to receive a tough response from India. Uri was more than a misadventure by Pakistan. Killing 18 soldiers inside a military camp situated a couple of kilometres inside the LoC is nothing short of a war crime. If terrorism becomes the state policy of a rogue nation, victim countries are left with very few options. Uri too has left India with very limited options.

More than the military might, it was the political will that was challenged. When I used the phrase, “For one tooth the entire jaw”, at one level, I was giving vent to the strong popular anger and resentment, but at another level it meant that the government should now go all out to end this menace. The prime minister had on Day One made it clear that this time the perpetrators shall “not go unpunished”. In a way, barring the usual gang of peaceniks and mombattiwalas, largely the country and the government were on the same page with regard to responding to this misadventure by Pakistan.

Normally, it couldn’t have come at a more difficult time — the United Nations was in session. But the Indian government saw an opportunity in this difficulty. A multi-pronged action plan was quickly put in place wherein a diplomatic offensive was launched together with a publicity overdrive.

India’s aggressive response to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s lies at the UN was a clear indicator of the things to come. It didn’t mince words, called Pakistan the host of “the Ivy League of terror”, described it as the “global epicentre of terrorism” and finally the young IFS lady officer, exercising the right of reply, thundered, “What we see in Pakistan, Mr President, is a terrorist state.’.

Naming and shaming Pakistan globally, isolating it on the diplomatic front and acting against terror targets were all a part of the multi-pronged strategy devised by the government. Leaving behind the policy paralysis of yesteryears and the so-called “strategic restraint”, the prime minister has taken the battle right deep inside the Pakistan territory by talking to the people of that country directly.

In his Kozhikode address, the prime minister had spoken about the need for both the countries to fight against hunger, illiteracy and backwardness; but he had not precluded action against Pakistan. In fact he told the Indian army that 1.25 billion Indians were behind it and repeated his earlier statement that he wouldn’t let the perpetrators of the Uri attack escape punishment. Some peaceniks wanted to read a different message in it. Some of those who were sworn adversaries of PM Modi, started penning blogs too, praising Modi’s “restraint”. But before their ink could dry, the operations against the terrorists waiting at the launch pads across the LoC in PoK were successfully completed by the Indian Army in a midnight operation.

Uri has changed India-Pakistan relations significantly. They will no longer be the same for at least some time to come. War nobody wants; but the alternative to war is peace; not humiliation and terror attacks. The rants of some Pakistan ministers about the nuclear first-use show the rogue nature of that country, which is the worst proliferator in recent years. Nuclear war nobody wants but the world can’t be a mute witness to the nuclear blackmail of rogue nations.

Terrorism is a global cancer. It needs surgical intervention. India has done its part. It will continue to defend its borders and citizens from this menace in the same manner. But it is also time the world community exerts pressure on Pakistan; pressure not just to ask Pakistan to “behave”, but as External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj exhorted at the UN, if it doesn’t behave, throw it out of all international fora. That has already happened at the SAARC.
For Pakistan, terrorism has come as a cheaper option all these years. Time to make it costly for it.

This article first appeared in The Indian Express.

The writer is Director, India Foundation and National General Secretary, BJP. Views expressed are personal

For long, Talibanisation was considered the biggest threat to the Pakistani state. This perception overlooked the fact that Taliban only threatened the government, whereas ethnic movements targeted the state and eroded Pakistani nationalism. Pakistan, from its inception, has failed to build a national identity. Consequently, all ethnicities, other than Punjabis, perceive themselves as Pakhtoons, Baloch, Sindhis or Mohajirs first, and Pakistanis later. They also feel discriminated by the Punjabi elite.

Baloch nationalism is the strongest today amongst Pakistan’s ethnic nationalisms. However, the Baloch are just five per cent of Pakistan’s population. Consequently, they have been keen to create a broad front of ethnic minorities against the Punjabi elite. The alienation in Pakistan’s second most populous province, Sindh, has provided them with an opportunity to create a united front with the Sindhi nationalists. This front has been functioning quite effectively overseas: Baloch and Sindhi activists have been protesting jointly at the UN bodies and in western countries. Of late, there has been growing convergence between them, even within Pakistan.

The tumult in urban Sindh and the movement of the Mohajirs has been making the headlines for some time. What is often overlooked is the deeper resentment in rural Sindh. At the time of Partition, Sindh had enormous untapped agricultural potential. This led to its colonisation by farmers from outside the province — immigrants from Punjab or retired army officers. After Partition, Sindh was forced to accommodate another set of immigrants — the Mohajirs, who came from the rest of India. Unlike Sindhi Muslims, who were mainly illiterate peasants at the time of Partition, the Mohajirs were amongst the most educated and elite Muslims of India. They cornered most of the government jobs and private businesses in Sindh.

Sindhis perceive themselves as being marginalised in their traditional homeland. The more than 81 per cent increase in Sindh’s population between 1998 and 2011 shows large-scale migration to the province. Karachi, Hyderabad and Sukkur, Sindh’s three major cities, are totally dominated by Mohajirs while the fertile land of northern Sindh is under the control of Punjabis. Sindhis are scattered in the barren countryside. They constitute only 45 per cent of the province’s population. Their percentage in Karachi is even lesser. They have been marginalised in various organs of the state. Only two per cent of Pakistan’s armed forces and five per cent of federal civil servants are Sindhis. Of the around 2,000 industrial units in Sindh, only a quarter are controlled by the Sindhis.

Sindhis have a strong socio-cultural identity, rich literature and a distinct script. However, Urdu-speaking migrants to Pakistan, who controlled Pakistan in the initial decades after Partition, tried to impose Urdu in Sindh. Sindhis see this as an attempt to marginalise their culture.

The first major insurrection in Sindh erupted in 1983 against General Zia-ul-Haq, who had executed a popular Sindhi leader — Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Numerous Sindhi nationalists defied army in the interiors of Sindh to fight for “Sindhudesh”. However, without external support, the movement lost steam. Subsequently, with the rise of PPP, with its base in Sindh, as the dominant political party, local perceptions changed . However, reduction in Sindh’s share of Indus water and reduction of the land under irrigation in Sindh and the proposed Kalabagh Dam, which could further reduce availability of water to Sindh, continue to agitate Sindhi minds. With the PPP reduced to a provincial party, Sindhi nationalism has raised its head again.

In early 2005, the Sindh Liberation Army (SLA) — allied with the Baloch Liberation Army — claimed responsibility for blasts on railway tracks and other sensitive installations in Sindh. Low-level blasts continued till 2007; SLA claimed credit for most of them. However, with the return of democracy in 2008 and the PPP’s rise to power, there was a sense of euphoria in Sindh. The turbulence started resurfacing in early 2010, when numerous bombs exploded on railway tracks. The floods in Sindh and the belief that the province was flooded to avoid damage to fields in Punjab, gave a fillip to resentment in the province.

Sindhi nationalist outfits have also been expressing dissent through legitimate political means. On Pakistan Day on March 23, 2012, the Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz (JSQM) led a 1,00,000-strong “march against slavery” in Karachi and called for an end to the subjugation of Sindhis by “a Punjab-dominated, Punjab-ruled, and Punjab-manipulated state”. Bashir Ahmed Qureshi, JSQM’s chairman called for the independence of Sindh and Sindhi resources from the whims of Punjabi aspirations. However, Qureshi died under suspicious circumstances within a fortnight of this proclamation. The belief that intelligence agencies had a role in his death, and in the disappearance of large numbers of Sindhi activists, have hardened positions even more.

Recent events show that the resentment in Sindh both amongst Mohajirs in urban centres and Sindhis in the countryside is rising. However, the lack of unity amongst Sindhi nationalists and absence of an effective organisation has prevented them from being able to force Islamabad to accommodate their viewpoints.

This article first appeared in The Indian Express.

The writer is director, India Foundation and adjunct professor at New Delhi Institute of Management. Views expressed are his own

~ By Chandrachur Singh

It is seldom that national leaders willingly travel that extra mile in international negotiations especially on vexed collective action issues, where their own developmental claims and rights could perceptibly be at stake in doing so. In the light of such a yardstick, the Paris Climate Summit (CoP-21, December 2015) qualifies as a rare diplomatic feat. The summit recognised voluntarism, transparency, support systems and understanding between states and communities within them as the only way forward for any realistic and time-bound solution to the problem containing climate change. Mounted on the value planks of equity, integrity, vulnerability, specificity, capability and responsibility, the negotiations worked out at Paris clearly attempt to reconcile development with climate sensitivity on the one hand and balance capabilities with differential responsibilities on the other. And it was only in the right earnestness that our Prime Minister described it as a ‘win for climate justice’[1].

One unambiguously accepts and endorses Prime Minister Modi’s characterization of the Paris summit as a ‘win for climate justice’. If that indeed is a correct assessment of the Paris Summit, then the most important issue at hand is to work out things that India would have to do as part of its duties and voluntary commitments towards achieving the ideal entailing ‘climate justice’. A related issue then would be to figure out how Indians can act in accordance with such expectations.

In its latest report (2014) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has described India as one of the most vulnerable nations to climate change impacts. The prediction that erratic and extreme monsoons would very severely impact India’s agriculture sector is really scary given the fact that nearly 70 per cent of India’s population is involved and dependent on agriculture and allied activities. The report outlines that the climate change impacts in India would affect not just land utilisation, agricultural production, food security and price stability but most significantly factors engendered by it i.e. rainfall variability, snowmelt, glacier retreat as well as evapo-transpiration. It also states that other acute such as fresh-water scarcity and the spread of both water and mosquito borne diseases like diarrhoea, cholera and malaria could prove as a big menace. The report largely confirms the assessment of the impacts done by the Postdam institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics on behalf of the World Bank in the year 2013.

Taken together, the two reports apprehend that Climate Change would severely impact most of the other major sectors of India’s economy such as energy, transport, tourism resulting in significantly slowing down of the efforts to reduce poverty as well as the ones targeted towards delivery of goods and services to its people especially those living in rural, far flung, as well as less accessible regions. Rampant poverty, highly imbalanced infrastructural preparedness as well as inadequate planning only adds to India’s vulnerabilities to climate change impacts.

Now let’s look at all these predictions in the light of certain other facts. The International Energy Association in its report published in the year 2013 states that India is now the world’s third largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter, having tripled its carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990 and 2011 alone. According to the IEA report with its rising economic and political status India’s emissions would increase by almost 2.5 times between 2008 and 2035.

In fact, such citations have been effectively used by the United States to evade from signing a legally binding treaty that would commit it to significantly reduce its GHG emissions which are disproportionately very high when compared to India’s share of emissions. For example, the per capita emission of India, with 17 per cent of world’s population, was one ton of CO2 emissions in 2013, whereas in the United States, with less than five per cent of the world’s population, per capita emissions were 17 t CO2 (IEA 2013). These facts compel us to investigate factors that plausibly account for the shifts in India’s climate change discourse.

It has been argued that there has been a growing realization amongst the policy makers and think tanks in India around the issue of ‘co-benefits’ i.e the development of policies and strategies that could, on the one hand, lead to a successful pursuance of developmental objectives, and, on the other, could be cited as good steps for addressing climate change impacts (Kapur et al 2009; Dubash 2011)[2]. However, complete reliance on the traditional stand would only result in international impasses that could well take it far away from both, the developed and the least developing economies (many of the vulnerable small islands as well as other countries in Africa). With its international leadership aspirations such as the permanent membership of the UNO soaring high, India would most certainly ill afford such developments.

Further, this is not only in tune with India’s preferred path of providing moral leadership by the way of ‘practicing the professed’ but would significantly allow it to play a weightier role in international climate negotiations. The warmth and mutual admirations that now characterize the Indo-US relationship could well be an additional important factor driving the shifts. The ever burgeoning Indo-US relationship definitely demand and require that both sides not only avoid mutual disagreements and antagonistic positions but to the best of their abilities, remain on the same page on some of the most critical issues that confront international politics today.

The shifts also to a large extent reflect the growing consensus amongst the global scientific community about the fact that the threats of global warming are real and here to stay. The impacts are in many instances already visible in India and that has propelled many civil society associations and other local institutions to deliberate, develop and urge the federal government to act. It also has fuelled initiation and development of alternative discourses of the developmental narratives that focus on living in consonance with nature.

The increased media coverage, the announcement of the Fifth Report by the IPCC, increased instances of climatic variations resulting in tragedies and natural disasters such as the one at Kedarnath in the year 2013 have all resulted in increased governmental activities on Climate Change. The establishment of the Prime Ministers National Council on Climate Change and the Expert Group on Low Carbon Strategies for Inclusive Growth by the Planning Commission (now the NITI Ayog) have increasingly domesticated the issue of climate change. It also means that new and more innovative ideas related to the issue would naturally surface up.

The primary shift in climate change discourses in India has been from a frame that externalized the climate change problem and solutions towards a “co-benefits” approach, where policies aim to align climate change with domestic priorities of poverty alleviation and economic growth. A shift in the emission trajectory, without compromising on the goal of increasing energy access, for example, through increased investments in renewables, and promoting energy efficiency, have thus emerged as common themes. Focus on the development of clean and renewable energy resources such as solar energy is not only in line with India’s quest for more equitable access to energy, it also provides it an ideal opportunity to surge ahead as the leader in what would most certainly be the key source of energy in future.

II

India’s responses to climate change have been built on the moral foundations of equity and fairness. As mentioned earlier, in the recent years however, it has been consistently displaying a very pragmatic approach, inherently characteristic of a deal maker. In fact, in the run up to the Copenhagen CoP, in 2008, India came out with a detailed policy document called National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC)[3], formally elaborating its key strategies for addressing climate concerns.

Motivated deeply by Mahatma Gandhi’s assertions of a self-sustaining life that is sync with nature, the NAPCC entails a bottom–up approach that seeks to realize developmental objectives through an increasing reliance on renewable energy resources harnessed through the use of cutting edge green technology. The idea is to usher in a new developmental framework that while being less carbon driven also supports indigenous mitigation and adaptation practices.

For an effective realization of the NAPCC, eight sectoral missions have been also been outlined.[4] These include the National Solar Mission; the National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency; the National Mission on Sustainable Habitat; the national water Mission; the National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem; the National Mission for a Green India; the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture; and the National Mission on Strategic Knowledge on Climate Change (PM’s Council on Climate Change 2008). The first three missions aim at reducing the emissions, whereas the later three are adaptation centric and the last two are designed to disseminate knowledge and responses on climate change. The objective of all these missions is to ensure that developmental priorities and plans are pursued in climate sensitive ways.

The climate concerns of India require it to make a judicious balance between pursuing developmental priorities on one hand and responding to mitigation and adaptation related responsibilities on the other. The task in hand is both simultaneously mutually reinforcing and complex. It is mutually reinforcing in the sense that socio- economic development is a must for ensuring that the vast majority of India’s poor people have access to basic minimum conditions of a rightful and dignified life. Interestingly, socio- economic development is also a prerequisite for saving millions of its people from the catastrophic impacts of climate change. The complexity of the task is however, related to reconciling the plausible contradictions between pursuing carbon-intensive affordable developmental plans and fulfilling mitigation related responsibilities simultaneously.

For India, coal is the most important energy resource because of its accessibility as well as affordability. It is not only world’s third largest coal producer[5] but the relative high cost of other non-conventional energy resources makes coal- fired energy plants most suitable for its developmental needs. It must be mentioned that India’s coal consumption has been projected to almost 1.5 billion (IEA 2015) metric tons by the year 2020[6]. With an annual consumption of almost 800 tons (IEA 2015), India is currently world’s third largest coal consumer, and the appetite is only to grow significantly in future as it moves ahead towards poverty alleviation and empowerment[7]. Given the fact that the Paris climate treaty has already been described by the Indian Prime Minister as being just and fair, what responsibilities will India undertake and how will it reconcile them with its existing developmental priorities are some of the issues that I take up next.

III

Socio economic development has always been India’s top priority and the additional imperative of negating the adverse impacts of climate change only strengthens and deepens them. In the aftermath of the Paris climate treaty, however, India will have to find a better way of aligning its developmental imperatives with climate sensibilities. It is obvious that India’s massive infrastructural deficiencies along with the imperative of securing minimum basic needs of a vast majority of its own population imply that it cannot completely give-up on its carbon-driven developmental model yet. However, the ever intensifying impacts of climate change also impel the establishment of a more open and robust technological and financial collaboration with the developed world. With the impacts of climate change already becoming evident, such techno-financial collaborations will not only enhance India’s access to greener technologies but also significantly aid its adaptation needs.

Adoption of economically viable mechanisms for production and conservation of green energy in terms of clean energy production and conservation is at heart of India’s mitigation strategies. India has already demonstrated its willingness and commitment to improve upon its carbon intensity by reducing, as far as possible, its reliance on carbon to propel its development and growth. In the run-up to the Paris Climate Meet, India submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) to the UNFCCC, for the period 2021-2030[8].

India’s INDC reflect its firm commitment to achieving and securing developmental goals like food security, poverty eradication, healthcare availabilities etc. in most climate sensitive ways – following low carbon pathways. It commits India to be propagating a healthy and sustainable way of living based on traditions and values of conservation and moderation and reducing the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 percent by 2030 from 2005 level; achieving  about 40 percent cumulative electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuel based energy resources by 2030; generating 175 gigawatts of renewable energy development by 2022 with the help of transfer of technology and low cost international finance including from Green Climate Fund (GCF)[9]. It also proposes to create additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030[10]. It has also pledged to source 40 percent of its electricity from renewable and other low carbon sources by 2030 compared to 2010 levels[11]. Moving away from fossil-fuel driven developmental model and achieving these professed goals means that India will have to be open in establishing partnership and alliances aimed at effectively addressing challenges related to climate change, without giving up on its own developmental needs and priorities. The launching of the International Solar Alliance, by India at the Paris Climate Summit with the objective of technology sharing and finance mobilising is a testimony to its seriousness and resolve.

Access to technology is important for India’s plans for meeting its ever increasing energy requirements through more sustainable and climate friendly sources. Establishing an efficient transmission and distribution system would immensely help in improving energy efficiency and offsetting the growth in energy consumption (on account of continued developmental march). In any case, achieving professed goals mean that India will have to undertake actionable plans promoting its energy security and to that end it will have to reduce its reliance on hydro-carbons. By an estimate, India’s current capacity to generate solar energy is about 75 gigawatts per day[12] against the world standards of 227 gigawatts[13]. India’s current capacity to generate wind power is 23 gigawatts (IEA 2015: 32) which would be required to be increased by four times to balance the limitations of the solar energy.

In addition to emission reduction attempts, a key requirement for India is also to undertake adaptation centric steps. One major way through which this can be done is by greatly increasing its GHG sequestering capacities by expanding its forest covers. It has been argued that, in order to be able to absorb 2.5 to 3 gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere, India will be required to enhance its dwindling forest cover significantly by almost 19-20 million hectares by 2030, while improving the quality of another five million hectares of forests. According to estimates made available by the World Bank, India will have to increase its forest cover by 10 per cent to take it to 33 per cent.

*Chandrachur Singh teaches Political Science at Hindu College, University of Delhi. At present he is the India Country Champion and Universitas 21, Doctoral Fellow at the University of Birmingham UK.

[1]http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/paris-agreement-a-victory-of-climate-justice-says-modi/article7983268.ece

[2] See Dubash, N. (2011). Introduction. In: N. Dubash, ed., Handbook of climate change and India: development, politics and governance, 1st ed. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp.1-27. Also refer to: Kapur, D., Khosla, D. and Mehta, P. (2009). Climate change: India’s options. Economic and Political Weekly, 36, pp.34-42

[3]  Government of India, ‘National Action Plan on Climate Change’ Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change, 2008, available at http://pmindia.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf Accessed on June 27, 2016

[4] ibid

[5] http://www.mining-technology.com/features/featurecoal-giants-the-worlds-biggest-coal-producing-countries-4186363/ Accessed,  9 June 2016

[6] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22652 Accessed 9 June 2016

[7] ibid

[8]http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/India/1/INDIA%20INDC%20TO%20UNFCCC.pdf accessed on June 28, 2016

[9] ibid

[10] ibid

[11] ibid

[12] http://www.mnre.gov.in/mission-and-vision-2/achievements/ accessed on June 28, 2016

[13] Available on http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/GSR_2016_KeyFindings1.pdf accessed on June 28, 2016

~ By Bryan Stout

2016 is a U.S. Presidential election year. This year comes with the usual high drama in politics for electing one of the most visible and important offices in the USA. This year’s cycle, however, is more unique than others with the nomination of a real estate billionaire and reality T.V. star Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for the President’s office. This year we have an election that has thus farand will likely defy political analysis. However, despite the sound bites, Twitter wars and new campaign tactics, the cold hard facts of electoral-college math cannot be ignored.

One feature of the U.S. Constitution, right from the 18th Century, has been that the electoral college allows for electors (actual individuals) to be selected based on a state’s congressional representation (number of U.S. Representatives plus two) when each state has two U.S. Senators. The candidate who receives a majority of electoral-college votes (270)is elected as the President. So, one might conclude that California with 55 electoral votes is the most important state for the Trump and Clinton campaigns. However, since all but two states award their electoral-college votes on a “winner takes all” basis, and California is solidly a Democratic state, Trump and Republicans will have to look elsewhere for electoral-college votes.

After we sort out each of the 50 states (and Washington, D.C.) based on competitiveness, we are left with only a handful of truly competitive states or “swing” states. Chief among these swing states are Florida (29 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (23 votes), Virginia (13 votes) and Ohio (18 votes), among a few others. The difficulty that Donald Trump faces is that the electoral map for Republicans in general has been getting more and more challenging since George Bush’s re-election in 2004. In fact, Donald Trump will not only have to win all of the states that Mitt Romney won in 2012, but also pick up states like Florida, Ohio, and Virginia for a chance to win the White House.Is this possible?

If this past year has taught us something it is that anything is possible in American politics.But this is a tall order for a candidate who seems to be more committed towards driving out his supporters to vote than reaching out to new voters. It should be noted that the second place finisher in the Republican presidential primary race, Texas Senator Ted Cruz failed to endorse Trump during his convention speech and John Kasich, the sitting Republican governor of swing state Ohio and third place finisher in the Republican primary behind Ted Cruz has so far declined to support Donald Trump.

While Mr. Trump has a difficult task ahead of him, Secretary Clinton also faces her own challenges. While the FBI decided not to proceed with criminal charges, it did condemn her handling of classified information. Adding to this, there is a continued tension and lack of trust among many Democrats for Mrs. Clinton especially after a bruising primary contest with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

Unfortunately, a growing number of voters across America feel they are faced with voting for the “lesser of the two evils” and are exploring not voting or voting for a third party. When included in polling questions, Libertarian candidate (and former Republican Governor of New Mexio) Gary Johnson polls between 9-11 per cent nationally – a significant increase over the party’s past presidential performances.

Donald Trump’s pick of current Indiana Governor, Mike Pence gives the ticket a degree of governing experience.Also, Pence, who hails from Indiana, has a track record of pursuing conservative policies in Indiana, which often appeals to Republican votes. Since Indiana has been the state that voted for Barack Obama in 2008 but switched back to the Republican column in 2012, this is going to be a state to watch out for. It would be interesting to see how Trump wins the other swing states if he cannot carry Indiana.

In Virginia, Hillary Clinton’s recently announced Tim Kaine as Virginia Senator. While Obama carried Virginia both in 2008 and 2012, the margins were extremely slim and George Bush carried the state in 2000 and 2004. If Clinton counts on Kaine to deliver his home state (where he also served as governor) and he does, that would be a major blow to Trump’s efforts to win the needed electoral-college votes.

Beyond the running mates and the math of the electoral there are some issues that have, at this point, seemed to raise themselves to the top of the American voters’ minds. Not surprisingly is the issue of the candidates themselves. Critics of Donald Trump point out that in addition to his total lack of government experience, the billionaire’s sterling business reputation is undeserved. They citethe failed Trump University venture and subsequent class action lawsuit by those who purchased Trump’s product and felt that they were taken advantage of. Mr. Trump alleged that the federal judge in the case is biased against him. Trump says that because he is running for president and has a tough stance on illegal immigration (the judge himself is a citizen from Indiana, but is active in immigration politics and his parents are immigrants from Mexico). Trump’s brash nature and “shoot from the hip” comments have endeared him to many across the country, but additionally turned off others who view his unfiltered comments as un-presidential or even worse.

Of course, Hillary Clinton has her own set of issues that are part of the political discussions of this election season. Like Trump, she has a very high negative rating with many voters and has some serious trust issues to overcome, some dating back to her days as First Lady – as early as 1992. While Clinton claims her experience as U.S. Secretary of State (and Senator and First Lady prior) make her more imminently qualified for office, supporters of the Secretary are hard pressed to name even one major achievement during her time in the U.S. Senate she claims. Her days as Obama’s Secretary of State narrate her failures of U.S. Policy in Libya and the on-going crisis in Syria and a more aggressive Russia.

Substantive issues on the campaign trail this season seem to be shifting more to security – both at home and abroad – in the light of the terrorist attacks in, France and Germany, as well as the shootings in the United States and the worsening relationship between police forces and African American communities. Trump has promised to be the law and order candidate and the only candidate who can ignite the U.S. out of the morass internationally. All the while Clinton has been saying that her experience as Secretary of State and her calls for a national dialogue on race and racism to address the issue of violence in many American cities stands in her stead.

The economy is always a major focus for campaigns and this election will likely be little different. With the U.S. still engaged in a tepid recovery from the Great Recession and fears of international economic slowdown ever-present, many Americans are concerned that their children may not have as high a standard of living as they have. What is different in this cycle is that Donald Trump has strayed away from the traditional Republican arguments for lower taxes across the board and free trade and suggested that people like him can pay more in taxes. Additionally, while candidates of the past and in the Republican primary have pushed for mild reforms to entitlement spending (such as Social Security) in order to ensure long term financial solvency, Mr. Trump has dismissed changing any aspect of the program during his time as President.

However, with any discussion of issues, we should note that this election may not focus so much on issues this time around, if they ever really did in presidential politics in America. While there are some voters who examine party planks and platforms, and weigh the pros and cons of each candidate on each of the issues important to them, these voters are likely to be in the minority. Many times a candidate will either succeed or fail because of some intangible quality, such as “How does he appear or sound ‘presidential” (as some criticize Trump) or that “She is not likable as a person” (as others have alleged against Mrs. Clinton), and not so much on their stand on any one issue. Predicting what will be on voters’ minds when they vote and what is most important to them (“likability” of a candidate, a stance on issues, the party affiliation of the candidate, etc.) will be the name of the game leading up to the election this November.

So with all the polls and prognostication, and analysis, can we say who will likely end up on top come this November? Given the almost unexpected rise of Donald Trump to secure the Republican nomination and the surprisingly vigorous primary challenge by Senator Bernie Sanders to Secretary Clinton, anything is possible this season. There could be horrible gaffs, breaking world headlines, or an “October surprise” revelation that changes the calculus almost overnight. Nationally, it looks like the polls are fairly even, with Mr, Trump enjoying a post-convention bounce. But we must remember that this election is the battle in the trenches for each of the states. Can the Clinton campaign count on what appears to be superior grass roots efforts to identify voters and turn them out in November? Or has Donald Trump ushered in a new age of politics when traditional methods of contesting an election are now secondary giving way to getting free media attention and mastering Twitter in order to make headlines? Only time will tell.

The author has campaigned during US Presidential Elections for Ohio in 2005. He cuurrently resides in Columbus, Ohio.