In the wake of India’s newly re-imagined policy towards the neighbouring Country, conducting precision strikes across the Line of Control (LoC), reviewing the ‘Most Favoured Nation’ status tag, and organising high-level meets to discuss withdrawal from the Indus Waters Treaty, China has taken a step by blocking tributary of the Yarlung Zangbo River (a tributary of Brahmaputra) to facilitate work on of its expensive hydropower projects in Tibet on September 30, 2016. The 4.95-billion-yuan project ($740 million) can store up to 295 million cubic meters of water.

China’s dam-building agenda has created apprehension within India about the risk of flash floods and landslides affecting millions downstream. In 2013, India complained to China about its expensive hydropower projects announced in the Brahmaputra region citing ‘irreparable damage’ to the Indian basin and also the impact it would have on the physical land and surrounding regions. China only assured that these projects would not have a negative impact. South Asia is one of the regions to be adversely affected by China’s proposed diversion of waters from the Tibetan plateau which is the ‘Principal Asian watershed and source of ten major rivers.[1] Tibet water travel to almost eleven countries and are said to bring fresh water to over 85% of Asian population, approximately 50% of world’s population.[2] South Asia is mainly concerned with Brahmaputra, Indus, Sutlej, Arun andKarnali whose water is life line for more than one billion people living downstream.

Climate change, depleting aquifers, rapid population growth and urbanisation are placing pressure on scarce water resources within the two countries of China and India. China’s increasing water scarcity is a complex web of pollution, energy, urbanisation and climate change. With high rates of population growth and urban development, China has an insatiable demand for energy, food and water. Water scarcity threatens the supply of all three of these needs. The Chinese Government must meet the water demands of its rapidly increasing urban population and its industrial sector without compromising agricultural production and food security. Therefore, it is presently toying with massive inter-basin and inter-river water transfer projects.

[1] Claude Arpi, Born in Sin: The Panchsheel Agreement : the Sacrifice of Tibet, Mittal Publication, New Delhi, (1st edn., 2004) at 173.
[1] Bharat Verma, Threat From China, Lancer Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, (2013).

For South Asia and more particularly for India, the enormity of the scheme and its closeness to the Indian border cannot be ignored. If it is accomplished, it will have ominous consequences for millions of people downstream.[1] These also raise the larger question about the cumulative impact of massive dam-building projects across the entire Himalayan region and the consequences of such intensive interventions in a region that is ecologically fragile. The dangers of water accumulation behind dams could also induce devastating artificial earthquakes. The creation of a huge artificial lake on the Tibetan plateau inundating vast areas of virgin forest within the canyon and beyond, home to  rare species of flora and fauna within the canyon which is at stake.

In the geo-dynamically active Himalayas, earthquakes are an ever-present danger with a recorded history going back to the 13th century. A sobering reminder is the devastating earthquake of 1950 in Assam in which the Brahmaputra Valley suffered the most damage.[2] A vast and densely populated region of North-east India that depends on water from Brahmaputra and its tributaries  feels  agitated over China’s ambitious efforts to redraw its water map. China’s reported plan to divert the Brahmaputra from its upper reaches is  seen as a direct affront to India and a violation of international norms of sharing river waters. Once the construction of dam is complete, the control on the water of Brahmaputra would be in the hands of China. As the Brahmaputra is the lifeline of North East India, the life and environment in the region  would be adversely affected by this development.

Besides India which in talks with the Chinese leadership raised the construction of a dam on the river Brahmaputra many times, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia had expressed similar concerns over eight dams being built on the Mekong River. China’s accelerating programme of damming every major river flowing from the Tibetan plateau  would trigger environmental

The Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Mr. Jaswant Singh, speaking on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address, March 5, 2008 said, “Sir, it is about the External Affairs Minister again. It is a very intriguing thing. I should not really be raising it until the discussion takes place on his statement. There is just one rather concise but intriguing sentence that the honorable Prime Minister made during his visit to the People’s Republic of China. This is exactly what it says, “PM also took up the issue of trans-border rivers.” I would like to caution you, Sir, that the question of Brahmaputra and the great bend of the Brahmaputra before it debouches into Assam in the North East is a serious situation. “Sir, I have obtained for myself maps from the Space Research Organization and they show that this gorge of the Yarlung Tsangpo and thereafter the Namca Barwa Mountain, has drop of 2,000 meters. It is a narrow gorge, and 2,000 metres in a distance of 15 km, which gives an enormous resource intimate to the people of China. I know there are plans to build a dam there. I would like to know what the response of the People’s Republic of China is about that.”

Nimmi Kurian, Downstream concerns on the Brahmaputra, The Hindu (November 3, 2015), available at http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/downstream-concerns-on-the-brahmaputra/article7834154.ece (last visited on October 13, 2016).

imbalance, natural disasters, degrade fragile ecologies, and divert vital water supplies. China’s vast thirst for power and water, its control over the sources of the rivers and its ever-growing political clout make it a singular target of criticism and suspicion. Although China has said  that it was constructing the dam to produce power, there are fears about hidden agendas  associated with it. China has assured India that nothing would be done that would affect India’s interest. India’s official narrative has largely tended to downplay many of these concerns with official pronouncements that India “trusts China”

In 2013, Beijing and New Delhi had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), recognising that trans-boundary rivers are an important asset  for the development agendas of all riparian countries. Both countries agreed to strengthen communication and strategic trust. China had agreed to provide more hydrological information to India at the start of the flood season. The international community’s attention needs to be attracted and India needs a totally different tactic to tackle the situation and maintain  goodwill. Only a combination of bilateral co-operation and strong leadership with demand- and supply-side management can influence the future and reduce the potential for a Sino-Indian water conflict.

~ The author is a Research Assistant in Law at the Indian Institute of Legal Studies, Siliguri, West Bengal.

All India, Press Trust of India, India to take up with China blocking of Brahmaputra River,  NDTV, (October 7, 2016), available at http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-to-take-up-with-china-blocking-of-brahmaputra-tributary-1471221 (last visited on October 12, 2016).

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared Sri Lanka to be Malaria-free by certifying that the life-threatening disease which long affected the island nation has been completely eliminated. The announcement was made at the 69^th session of WHO Regional Committee for South East Asia held in Colombo this month (September2016). ‘Sri Lanka’s achievement is truly remarkable. In the mid-20th century it was among the most malaria-affected countries, but now it is malaria-free’, noted WHO Regional Director, Dr. Poonam Khetrapal Singh.

Sri Lanka and Malaria

“Malaria, the bane of the Island and protean in its forms, claimed about the usual number of victims, especially in less advanced provinces. The mortality large as it is, is not the only evil. Every death represents many attacks, meaning an incalculable amount of suffering and racial deterioration and sapping of life and vigour of the people” – Census of Ceylon, 1901

Malaria had been thesubject of attention from early colonial times and has found references in the literature as ‘agues and fevers’ until thetwentieth century when it came to be popularly called as Malaria. It came to recognition as a killer disease in 1934-35 when it affected many parts of the country and caused an estimated death toll of around 1,00,000 people within the space of 8 months. That translates to 1.5% of total population of Sri Lanka i.e., 5.5 million during that time. Sri Lanka’s fight against malaria completed 100 years in 2011. It launched Anti-Malaria Campaign (AMC) in 1911 and since then, it has been responsible for the control of the disease in the country. Currently, it is a specialised campaign run by Ministry of Health, Sri Lanka. The main objectives of this programme were to eliminate indigenous P. falciparum malaria transmission by the end 2012 and indigenous P. vivax malaria transmission by 2014; to maintain zero mortality from malaria and to prevent reintroduction of malaria into the country. As a result, since October 2012 the indigenous cases were down to zero. But the road to malaria elimination was tough and unique and therefore can serve as amodelfor other nations who are still grappling with the disease including India.

After three decades of thefight against malaria since 1934 epidemic, the number of cases were down to just 17 in 1963 with zero mortality. But Sri Lanka failed to sustain control measures due to lack of funds or funds being directed to other programmes which led to resurgence of malaria epidemic in various parts of the country. The number of malaria cases recorded in 1967 and 1968 was 3,466 and 4, 40,644 respectively.

It is only after theresurgence of malaria in the 1960s and 1970s that Sri Lanka realised the complexities in controlling the disease and adjusted its strategies tobecome highly effective. It started focusing on targeting parasite along with conventional methods of DDT application for killing the mosquito. Mobile malaria clinics were also set up in order to diagnose people in the early stages to prevent further transmission. Effective surveillance, implementing epidemic preparedness and response strategies were part of the campaign that brought down cases to less than 1000 by the year 2006. It required government’s will to control the epidemic outbreaks even during the decades’ long conflict during the 1990s and 2000s.

India and Malaria

In India too, malaria is a serious health problem in various parts of the country. The malaria-affected regions are evenly distributed across India and about 95% population resides in malaria endemic areas.Further, 80% of malaria are reported from areas where only 20% of thepopulationresides, namely tribal, hilly, difficult and inaccessible areas. Despite all challenges, India has made progress in tackling malaria by reducing the number of cases from 2 million in 2000 to 882,000 in 2013. India aims to eliminate malaria completely by 2030 through National Framework for Malaria Elimination (NFME) in India 2016-2030 which was developed after extensive consultations with officials from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme(NVBDCP), experts from the Indian Council of Medical Research, WHO and representatives from civil society institutions.This is in line with WHO’s recently developed Global Technical Strategy for Malaria 2016-2030which advocates global acceleration of malaria elimination efforts by 2030. On similar lines, the Asia Pacific Leaders Malaria Alliance (APLMA), of which India is a member, has set a target for malaria elimination in all countries of Asia Pacific by 2030. The Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi was among the 18 leaders, who endorsed the APLMA Malaria Elimination Roadmap at the ASEAN summit held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in November 2015.

Image Source: http://nvbdcp.gov.in/malaria3.html

These statistics show how India’s performance has improved in controlling malaria, especially in the last decade. In the last five years, malaria deaths were reduced to less than 1000,though the scenario is far from elimination. The specific strategies that are adopted under the new framework include considering district as a unit of planning and implementation, focussing on high transmission areas and adopting aspecial strategy for elimination of P.vivax cases.

What India can learn from its neighbour?

India contributes to 70% of the total malaria cases in the South East Asia region of which Sri Lanka now contributes zero. Therefore, the success story of Sri Lanka is worth having a look. One of the major challenges in malaria control according to Health Ministry is insecticide resistance. The extensive usage of insecticides, particularly DDT, under the Vector control programme controlled malaria to a great extent but helped vectors develop resistance. In this regard, Sri Lanka adopted an unorthodox strategy to hunt down on parasites to the last extent possible. The Sri Lanka story tells us that malaria elimination was absolutely a prioritised issue backed up with strong political will. During the times of ethnic conflict, government convinced the LTTE to co-operate with malaria control measures so that last mile delivery of healthcarewas ensured. India too finally gained political commitment after the PM endorsed APLMA roadmap. Mobile malaria clinics were one of the success symbols of Sri Lanka’s anti-malaria campaign. Considering India’s vast territory, it is often difficult to implement mobile measures during population movement between states and union territories. However, these must be implementedin high transmission areas or in least accessible areas.

Malaria is not just a serious health issue, it adversely affects socio-economic conditions of the communities. Hence, India should really accelerate its measures to eliminate the disease as soon as possible. India should prioritise the issue and spend aconsiderable proportion of the country’s overall expenditure on health. India too hopefully learns from its neighbour invoking health diplomacy and get rid of this deadly disease in the coming years.

The author is a Young India Fellow (2016-17) from Ashoka University and an Intern at India Foundation. The views expressed are his own.

References

1. National Framework For Malaria Elimination In India (2016-2030) http://www.nvbdcp.gov.in/Doc/National-framework-for-malaria-elimination-in-India-2016%E2%80%932030.pdf
2. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme (NVBDCP)http://nvbdcp.gov.in/malaria3.html
3. http://www.malariacampaign.gov.lk/precentation/MalariaInSriLanka.aspx
4. http://www.searo.who.int/mediacentre/releases/2016/1631/en/
5. Abeyasinghe et al., Malaria Control and Elimination in Sri Lanka: Documenting Progress and Success Factors in a Conflict Setting
6. India drives down malaria rates, sets sights on eliminationhttp://www.who.int/features/2015/india-programme-end-malaria/en/
7. http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/country-profiles/profile_ind_en.pdf?ua=1
8. http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/country-profiles/profile_lka_en.pdf?ua=1

A year back, in September 2015, Nepal’s new Constitution was welcomed with hope and jubilation. As September turned into October, this jubilation and hope soon turned into despair. Now one year since, Nepal has witnessed a series of protests, a border blockade and seen two different prime ministers. As we enter October 2016, what remains of the hope and jubilation that initially greeted the Constitution? Following the lows of early 2016, where is Nepal on its journey to establish a national consensus? Are India-Nepal relations on the road to recovery? In tackling these questions, the commentary takes a look at the recent developments and considers possible future course of events.

The road towards drawing up the new Constitution lasted eight years. When it was finally implemented on 20 September 2015, the reception was not on expected lines. While a section of the Nepali population along with China was thrilled, the Madhesis in the Terai and the Indian Government were not that welcoming. Coming just on the heels of the April 2015 earthquake, the Madhesi lead protests and border blockade was the last thing Nepal needed, at a time when focus on implementing the Constitution and providing earthquake relief should have been a primary goal. Ties with its long-standing partner India were also a casualty of the ten-month long period of turmoil.

As we mark one year since the adoption of the new Constitution, Nepal is on the slow but steady road to recovery. When the Madhesi agitation was initially called off in February, there ensued an atmosphere of positivity. This period saw some progress including three Constitutional amendments; key issues relating to citizenship and division of provinces were not settled though. The protests lead by Madhesis and Janajatis which rocked Kathmandu in May 2016, appeared to be a sign that agitating groups had joined hands to pressurise the government.

The protests in Kathmandu never materialised and failed to have an impact like the border blockade. This second round of protests failed due to the choice of location. The Madhesis had hoped that joining with the Janajatis and taking the agitation to the capital city might have a greater impact. However, unlike the previous protests and border blockade, this protest did not impact the flow of basic supplies. The protesters as a result had a smaller bargaining power.

More positive signs about a national consensus have emerged after Pushpa Kamal Dalal (Prachanda) took over as the Prime Minister. Firstly Prachanda’s government has the support of the Madhesi parties in the national parliament. He became the Prime Minister based on his promise to come up to a national compromise on the Constitution. As a result Prachanda is obliged to work towards a national consensus that is acceptable to all.

Two months into his tenure, all indications point towards a constructive dialogue to iron out differences. The government has already taken steps to appoint a commission, which will probe into the atrocities committed by the police during the protests. A proper compensation package is also being worked out for the families of those killed and the injured during the protests. While these measures would not resolve the crisis, they are small but important steps in addressing the trust deficit. Giving paramount importance to dialogue with the Madhesis, Prachanda’s decided to skip the UNGeneral Assemblymeeting, in order to focus on discussions regarding the Constitution.

While these are highly positive signs, it is important to exercise cautious optimism. The dialogue process has been painfully slow. Considering the crucial phase that Nepal is going through, a quicker consensus would help in strengthening confidence in the new system. Importantly the current dialogue is only an informal dialogue, the formal talks have to still begin. Finally, there is the pressing question if the Constitutional amendments can actually be passed. Any Constitutional amendment requires two-thirds support in the parliament. Prachanda’s party is the third largest party in the house. One cannot help but question if the government can actually garner the support to pass the amendments.

Given Nepal’s location and its diplomatic history, the constitutional crisis had significant international ramifications. The most crucial one was its impact on India-Nepal relations. Since India is a very close ally and an indispensible trade partner, good relations with India is an important factor in Nepal’s experiment with democracy becoming a success. The last one-year has been a torrid time for India-Nepal relations. What started off with India’s cold response to the Constitution, snowballed into India being accused of starting an unofficial border blockade. The rocky times in the relations was largely due to India’s mishandling of the situation and former Prime Minister K.P. Oli’s hostile stand vis-à-vis India.

Under Prachanda significant progress has been made to mend fences. His recent state visit to India proved to be very successful with India agreeing to step up assistance. Indications have also emerged that India is more open to the Constitution and throwing its weight behind the dialogue. Like the process of building a national consensus, mending India-Nepal relations is also going to be long drawn process. The damage done over the last one year cannot be rectified in the span of a few months.

The last one-year has been a turbulent one for Nepal. It has witnessed a border blockade, seen two Prime Ministers in office and witnessed ties with a crucial neighbor nosedive. In the two months since Prachanda has taken office, Nepal seems to be flying in calmer skies. An informal dialogue has already commenced, in the hope of coming up to a consensus. This period has also witnessed a marked improvement in India-Nepal ties. At this point in time, it would be prudent to exercise a cautious optimism. Over the next few months, once more progress is made in the dialogue, a lot of the jubilation and hope that one saw in September 2015, would begin to re-emerge.

The author is a academic associate at Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. The views represented are his own and does not represent the views of the organization he represents.

Now that the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) debate is once more upon us it is time that  those of us committed to the idea of an UCC think about what should be our strategy to achieve that objective.

It is important to note right at the beginning that the UCC was inserted as a Directive Principle of State Policy (Article 44) at the time of the formation of the Constitution. It was then perceived to be a strongly liberal and modernist provision in the Constitution. Till the 1970s the provisions regarding UCC was right on top of the agenda of the leftists and liberals. Even during the 1980s the UCC was the demand of the leftists and liberals who perceived it to be a panacea for all ills arising out of traditional backwardness and religiosity.

The entire fiasco of the Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and the Shah Bano judgement arose out of the perception of the liberal intelligentsia that the key to the modernisation of Indian society was the modernisation of personal laws. The liberal intelligentsia in the sequence of incidents came up against the whirlwind of Islamic fundamentalism which in the 1980’s was  emerging as a key opponent to modernism. That specific incident and the craven surrender of a supposedly liberal and modernist government to the threat of violence by Islamic fundamentalists resounded all over the world. In global politics that surrender was followed by the issuance of a fatwa against Salman Rushdie and resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism as an ideology and a method of governance.

In the face of this resurgence it was surprising that instead of confronting this completely illiberal resistance to liberalism and modernisation, the liberals in fact switched over to supporting the Islamic fundamentalist position in relation to the UCC. In fact so complete was the switchover that the liberals,  during this high noon of Islamic fundamentalism, actually started equating the UCC with manifestation of religious majoritarianism in India .This resulted in a strange situation where only the nationalists were left with supporting the UCC. In fact  this issue had become so radioactive that when the NDA government was formed, it was widely perceived to have put the issue of implementation of the UCC on the backburner. Large parts of the liberal intelligentsia thought that  this was a positive development.

It seems that the country is going through another discussion in relation to the UCC. This discussion would mean that besides the nationalists there would be different voices which would have a  role in deciding the trajectory of the UCC debate. The rest of the present article would consist of broadly discussing  the  positions of different groups of people who  could be expected to be a part of this  debate.

The first would be the liberals. As mentioned before, the liberals have continuously prevaricated about their actual standing in relation to the UCC. While in the first 40 years of independence, UCC was a major objective in their manifesto to make India a modern state, in the subsequent 27 years they have treated the UCC as an  exercise in majoritrianism. It seems that there is again a turn in the liberal position where there seems to be an increasing section which now realises that the first proposition was possibly the correct position considering the way Islamic fundamentalism subsequently evolved. It can be expected that sections of the liberals would be more forthcoming and helpful in the formation of the UCC now than they were at any time in the last 30 years.

The second would be the feminists. The feminists are also in a dilemma and along with the liberals  have also gone through the long arc of first backing and then dissociating themselves from the UCC. At  first  the UCC was seen as an emancipatory legislation. Subsequently, it was perceived to be a majoritarian attempt to dominate the feminist discourse. The argument  put forward was that societies and especially minority communities had to reform from within and women’s rights had to be contextualised in terms of the culture of the minority group. This resulted in the anomalous position whereby feminist groups would promote radical gender equality amongst the majority community while supporting open discrimination as long as the same was practised by the religious minority. However it seems also that this time some of the feminist groups may be willing to come out and support a UCC or a legislation which would  have a similar objective.

The third group would be Muslim women’s groups who have been agitating for equality within Muslim law. Needless to say  how far this group would be willing to support a UCC is something which needs to be tested. This is  especially relevant considering that the attempt of the traditionalists would be to paint the UCC as a majoritarian project.

The fourth group would be the Muslim traditionalists who may be divided into two groups; the first completely rejecting any intervention in the personal law of Muslims and the second, who would like to carve out an exception for Muslim law but also, would   accept incorporation of progressive elements within the law. Historically the latter group has been more powerful politically and the former more powerful socially within the Muslim community.

There would also be various different groups from within various religious minorities and even from within the religious Hindu majority who would be opposed to a UCC on the ground that the same would possibly destroy the sanctity of personal law as well as the distinctiveness of various groups and their ancient practises . The arguments would possibly be made on the grounds of plurality. It is surmised that the whole overwhelming objection would come from traditional elements within such groups who would perceive the UCC as a threat to their control of the lives of the members of their groups. Needless to say that during the last attempt to legislate a Hindu code there was great resistance from the Hindu community itself.

The broad question Constitutional question at the centre of the debate would be as to whether equality is an absolute value or as the Supreme Court has said numerously, existence of equality can only be amongst equals, and that all communities are different.

Broadly there seems to be two possible methods to deal with the issue of incorporating greater egalitarianism within various personal laws. The first is the UCC and the second is a judicial process.

If we adopt the first, then it is very important that the nationalists would need to create a broad coalition to bring on-board various groups, described above, in different compositions. This would also mean taking on board the concerns of the  different groups. If the UCC is to succeed, under no circumstances can the UCC  have the flavour of being partial to any religious group. This would mean that the process of evolution of the UCC would ensure a constant conflict between those who perceive the society as an aspirational, uniform entity and those who perceive  society to be an association of various groups. Under the circumstances any concession to any group would result in other groups perceiving that they were being discriminated against. More than consensus on the idea of UCC which itself is debatable, there would be even greater conflict on what would be the actual provisions of the UCC. Even if all groups were to actually agree to an UCC, it would be very difficult to get them to agree to a draft bill acceptable to all.

It is therefore suggested that a better way may be to approach personal laws through the prism of  civil liberties legislation in the area of personal law. The strategy of the said Bill would be to do away with any inequality to any individual in any  of the different personal law. It would be a statute which would strictly be based on Constitutional values. This would also effectively  mean that the law would ensure that specific exceptions in personal law which create inequalities are either done away with or are equalised. For example in a divorce all grounds which are available to a Hindu male should be available to a Hindu female, and similarly the same would be applicable to divorce and polygamy in Muslim law and tribal customs. This would ensure that specific groups  would not be able to make an argument that the law is skewed towards the agenda of any of the  groups while bringing personal laws in consonance with the Constitution.

The other option is to bring in this radical equality through judicial interpretation where the Courts can make personal laws subject to fundamental rights, which as of now, they are not. The Courts can also apply  fundamental rights to all personal laws, especially the Right to Equality. The Right to Equality is fundamental to our Constitution and there can be very little objection in granting equal status to all persons within specific groups. No one can justify heavenly ordained discrimination because it would  go against the principles on which the State is governed, namely  the Constitution of India. If there is one agreement amongst all the above groups it is about the primacy of the Constitution. However this is a strategy which requires strong judicial will and whether the judiciary  would be able or willing to take such a strong stand after the fiasco of Shah Bano remains to be seen.

The present government, committed to the new aspirational Indian, is obligated to ensure that no person is discriminated against. Equality before law of every person in society regardless of his/her individual background is the key to create a modern state and economy. Multiplicity of laws and legal regimes in relation to property holding, individual relationships and property rights are fetters on social and economic progress.  Social, political, religious and personal discrimination is anathema to the ethos of the egalitarian and emancipatory vision of the Constitution and on that ground alone,discriminatory personal laws have no place in the legal regime. However India having a storied history and an ancient civilisation, personal laws are tied with prickly sensitivities. This is specially so because they have served as the basis of the old colonial policy of ‘divide and rule’ and have been deeply politicised .Therefore, the initiation of the debate  on UCC is  to be greatly appreciated because it is the first step towards confronting an issue which is clearly holding back Indian society from growing into an egalitarian and modern one.

The author is an advocate at Supreme Court of India. The views expressed are his own.

The Indus Water Treaty (IWT) is under the scanner, unlike several times earlier, due to the deteriorating  political and diplomatic ties between India and Pakistan—exemplified by the recent Uri attack in September. The only difference now is the strong stand of the present government in terms of security and strategy that has opened new avenues for talks on the reconsideration of this six-decade long treaty . The impetus is further emphasised by the deferring of the meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission There was  speculation of even suspension of the treaty, with the Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson, Vikas Swarup cryptically hinting, “For any such treaty to work, it is important there must be mutual trust and cooperation. It can’t be a one-sided affair.”

Acknowledging the gravity of any reconsideration of the treaty, numerous opinions and debates have been thrown up which  suggests various improvisations and additions which could be incorporated in the Treaty. Abrogation of the treaty is another radical idea floated, extrapolating the “offensive defence” strategy. Through the article, we explore some significant and diverse approaches to the reconsideration of the treaty, and also discuss  possible ramifications.

Historical Background

IWT, signed on September 1960, is a “treaty between the government of India and the government of Pakistan concerning the most complete and satisfactory utilisation of the waters of the Indus system of rivers.” ^[1] It is considered as one of the most successful stories of water diplomacy, as even amidst military stand-offs and the wars of 1965, 1971 and 1999—when the atmosphere of enmity and distrust had reached the peak—both the countries abided by the bilateral commitments. The World Bank played a crucial role by acting as a broker and a mediator during the decade long negotiations leading to the signing of the Treaty.

The water-sharing treaty called for the division of the rivers into two categories, the ‘eastern rivers’ and ‘western rivers’, with the former comprising of the  Beas, Ravi and Sutlej rivers allocated to India and the latter comprising  Indus, Chenab and Jhelum rivers allocated to Pakistan. The treaty imposed certain restrictions on India which include severe limitations with regards to the building of ‘storages’ on the western rivers, and the extension of irrigational development in India. It also institutionalised a Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) to ensure the implementation of the provisions of the treaty, exchange and evaluation of data on water usage, works impinging on the water flows, drainage, storage, etc. of the Indus system and deliberate on issues which may arise incidental to the treaty’s functioning. ^[3] Further various provisions for dispute resolution are stated, specifically the appointment of  a Neutral Expert (NE) if ‘difference’ of matter occurs between the governments of the two countries.

Dissatisfaction among Stakeholders

The treaty specifies the sharing of the waters of the western rivers of Indus according to the 80% – 20% rule, wherein 80% goes to Pakistan and 20% to India. This has been an issue of contention, where both the countries have expressed dissatisfaction. India says 20% is a meagre amount quantitatively, while Pakistan uses a historical argument that territories which fell into India after Partition had always used less than 10% of the waters and thus, the treaty is generous to India.^[2]  Further, ’ndia’s dissatisfaction arises from the stalling of its projects on the western rivers by Pakistan, due to the ambiguous meanings of words used in the document such as ‘storage’ and ‘run of river’—both of which point to the circular argument of India not being allowed to build storages on the western rivers, and since any run of the river project would have some unavoidable storage, it creates vicissitudes.

Moreover, the document is highly technical in terms of the language used and the connotations attached with it, when juxtaposed with other treaties such as India’s treaty with Nepal on Mahakali River and India’s treaty with Bangladesh on Ganges River. The technicalities of the document lead to the multiple interpretations by the engineers, which are then translated into weapons in the political arena. Thus, a simplified version with specific and unambiguous content should be crafted.

Another important stakeholder in this treaty is the state of Jammu & Kashmir, whose needs are not sufficiently catered to. Not enough has been done in terms of providing irrigation facilities, hydroelectric power and navigation to the state through development of infrastructural projects.

Western Rivers’ Utilisation

According to the treaty, India is restricted to use the western rivers only for the purposes of “domestic”, “non-consumptive use” and build storages of capacity of 3.6 million acre feet(MAF), but till date India has not build any such storage. India is allowed to irrigate up to 9.1 lakh acres of land using water from the western rivers, with an additional 4.3 lakh acres allowed if India shares more water with Pakistan. But currently, India uses these rivers to irrigate only 8 lakh acres of land. Furthermore, analysts have estimated that within the treaty specification, the western rivers can yield to India 18,600 MW of hydropower.  India is presently generating only 3,034 MW from these rivers, with another projects to generate another 8,372 MW   in the pipeline. ^[4] It could be well argued that India should maximise its use of the western rivers through construction of hydel projects,  expediting the construction of dams such as Tulbul River Project, Pakal-Dol, Sawalkot and Bursar. Pakistan might raise objections as earlier seen during the development of projects such as Kishanganga and Baglihar, but a review of the treaty on these lines could definitely be considered, besides the alternative of implementing them under the ambits of the present treaty. Further, Ramaswamy R. Iyer, a water policy expert proposes the idea of “integrated” and “holistic” sharing of the waters of each of the rivers, but this might lead to future disputes as it would change the status quo.

Reconsideration from the lens of Climate Change

As the treaty was finalised in 1960, it lacks the climate change element. Recent studies reveal that Himalayan glaciers would continue to retreat drastically as a result of change in climatic conditions. This would have significant effect on flow patterns of Himalayan Rivers including those of the Indus system. In the short term, the water flow might increase with the formation of glacial lakes but the long term impact would be a decrease in river flow pattern. Also, the increasing frequency of flash floods and Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs) are a cause of concern and both the large riparian countries, India and Pakistan—and also China—should cooperate on issues such as disaster management and early warning systems. ^[5] Therefore, there is an urgent need for reconsideration of the treaty from the lens of climate change.

Alternative of Abrogation

In the wake of reconsideration of the IWT, there are views expressed in favour of complete abrogation of the treaty as well. “The IWT has become an albatross around India’s neck. If India wishes to dissuade Pakistan from continuing with its proxy war, it must link the IWT’s future to Islamabad honouring its anti-terror commitment, or else the treaty collapses”, argues Brahma Chellaney, professor at the Centre for Policy Research. But, this is easier said than done. India unilaterally abrogating the treaty would not only earn a bad international image, but also would be a cause of worry for neighbours—Nepal and Bangladesh with whom India has similar water sharing agreements. Where the IWT to be abrogated, it would be difficult to rework such a treaty, despite whosoever the mediator might be this time. Since, Pakistan regularly  violates ceasefire agreement on a daily basis and dishonouring the commitment of acting against terror, it would become even more difficult to conduct  talks in future between the two countries.

Conclusion

Since the present government has extensively engaged with its neighbours under the ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy and has carved a niche foreign policy, abrogation would certainly not be a considered  option. Reconsideration through renegotiation would be a better alternative as a part of the multi-pronged response to the recurrent terror attacks which India faces from Pakistan. The proposed constitution of an inter-ministerial commission to study the intricacies of the treaty and recommend amendments would a substantive initiative undertaken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This decision however should be implemented diligently whilst consulting all the stakeholders, and also  to incorporate concerns raised by the Sustainable Development Goals. This would not only improvise India’s stature immensely at the global level, but also implicitly act as a handle to mend Pakistan’s behaviour, if used wisely.

The authors wrote this article with inputs from contributions from Jerin Jose. All the three are Young India Fellows (2016-2017) from Ashoka University.

Works Cited

[1]Bilateral Document on Indus Water Treaty, Ministry of External Affairs, India. 1960.

[2]Ramaswamy R. Iyer. Indus Treaty: A Different View. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 29. 2005.

[3]Gautam Sen. Deactivating the Permanent Indus Waters Commission. Indian Defense Review.  2016.

[4]Charu Sudan Kasturi. Delhi dips toe but Indus treaty afloat. Telegraph India.  2016.

[5]The Indus Equation, Strategic Foresight Group. 2011.

Religion and religious practices often dictate lifestyles, choices and forms of representation. Clearly, all religious practices across history and in the geographical spread have adapted themselves to local customs and traditions and have enriched themselves by a syncretic effort to unite. Islam has been no exception in how it lends an identity to a practising Muslim. But true to the concept of adaptation and universal appeal, Islam in Egypt, Myanmar, India, Afghanistan, Malaysia and many other places has been different in practice. However, noted scholars and theorists have pointed out to the recent but proliferating phenomenon among Muslims across the world to imitate the Arabs.

It is as if a stamp of approval from the Arab world and practices of Arabic Islam is what is needed to guarantee the Muslims their sense of identity. The concept of purity in the version of Islam followed in the Arab world is what seems to threaten the plurality that any universal religion advocates. In this article, i wish to contextualise this argument within the Indian frame of reference.

Symbols code the world around us. Culture is symbolically coded. The society we inhabit is symbolically represented. In that respect, the logo of an organisation is a powerful introduction and marker of its intent and identity. It carries a strong message elaborating on its vision and mission. The symbols embedded in a logo are carefully picked to appeal to and inspire its immediate audience.

University logos are no different in their symbolic signatures and socio-political gesticulations. A university logo is expected to be a well thought out manifestation of the learning goals of the institution it represents. It might be intriguing to look at the website of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The logo of AMU is a stark image of a ‘date palm tree’. The palm tree is  at the centre of the logo with a crescent moon and a book adorning the sides.

What could a palm tree signify in the logo of one of the highest citadels of Muslim learning in India? It is noteworthy that AMU has no more than a few countable ornamental palm trees in its campus. What was, then, the inspiration behind this choice? Dr SS Gupta, in his book titled Muslim Politics, while commenting on the misplaced symbolism in the AMU notes, “If one looks to the institutional song and flag of Aligarh Muslim University there is hardly anything which is rooted to Indian tradition and culture. The university Tarana (song) does not contain a single word in praise of India but it glorifies such things as the evening of Egypt and the mornings of Shiraz.”

Further research reveals that except AMU, Jamia Millia Islamia University and Annamalai University, no other university in India has date palm on its logo. In fact, even in one of the most reputed universities in Islamic studies, International Islamic University, in Malaysia, date palm tree does not figure in its logo. Neither does it find mention in the national symbols of Pakistan,  Bangladesh,  Iraq, or Iran. In fact, the only place where palm trees have been prominently used are in the institutions of the Arab world – on the national emblem of Saudi Arabia, on the currency notes of the country and, of course, on university logos in universities like the King Saud University, the King Khalid University and the Al Imam Islamic University – to  name a few.

The reason why palm trees figure as symbols or logos in the Arab world is by the nature of their ubiquity in these coastal geographies which informs the usage of the plant as a logo. Similarly, to some extent, Annamalai University’s usage of the palm trees stands justified. Therefore, it needs to be noted that the selection of palm tree as a logo has mostly to do with geography.

Saudi date palm’s entry in Indian educational psyche is an interesting topic of sociological inquiry. The usage of the Arab world logos, symptomatic of the growing cultural consciousness of the Arabic world not just in India but also world wide marks a definite shift in the worldview of Muslims. But it must be understood that this has not been a watertight and a recent shift from history in India but has been a gradual move. Muslim intelligentsia from its rootedness in Indic awareness to its looking up to the Arab world for some kind of glorified acceptance is a phenomenon that needs intellectual enquiry. It is an assertion of some lacunae in the Indic conception of Islam, a suggestion towards a cultural inferiority complex and a conscious effort to move away from something which is less Islamic to something which is more Islamic, therefore, purer and better.

Hence, it needs to be appreciated that this process of symbolism, by virtue of its nature in being representative, has   to undergo a process of discovery and analysis. While somewhere geography has played a role, at other places cultural and social tendencies have informed the selection of a logo or a symbol. It  has not been created at random by just anyone but has come from some top Muslim intellectuals or cultural stalwarts signifying something else than the apparent.

This self-identification with Arabs is not limited to logos and symbols. The growing trend of keeping a beard, wearing skull caps and longer kurtas – shorter pyjama by men and hijab by women, using Arabic-enriched local language in conversation and to mimic Arabic pronunciations and opposing Indian traditions and customs have been the result of a phenomenon that many scholars have called Arabisation. It must be noted that this process is being consciously and consistently linked with Islamic revivalism.

Capturing this trend, historian Irfan Habib has tried to theorise the phenomenon and has called this as the “Ashrafisation of Indian Muslims” (something similar to Sanskritisation in the Hindu context). The psychological fear and cultural insecurity among minority Muslims to be considered as Azlafs (lower Muslims) by Ashrafs( ‘puritan’ Arabs) has pushed the Indian Muslims  to silently disown their identity markers and adopt those of their Arab counterparts. This process of shunning of an existential reality and donning a new one is a mark of appropriation of a culturally alien world order, affected by strict regimentation – imported from the religious culture of Arabs. Gradually, it has become aspirational and desirable to sound, dress, pray and behave like an Arab.

The process of Arabisation and Islamic revivalism seeping in the symbolic traditions of the Muslim Universities in Delhi and Aligarh is informed by a memory that is manufactured and totally disconnected with reality. This is a memory that was gradually cultivated over generations after Shah Walliulah Dehlawi, a reputed Ulema in the second half of the eighteenth century AD, sowed the first seeds of Wahhabism in India. He, thereby, laid the ideological foundation for Arabisation of Muslims in India. Over time, this has dealt a suicidal blow to the local character of Islam in the Indian subcontinent. The flavour of Islam in India has been substituted by a more centralised and a more utopian vision of how pan-Islamism should look like in its tone and tenor. Globally, there has been a race to replace any ‘mutations’ with a ‘purer’ version of Islam.  This has affected various cultural practices in various sects of Muslims around the world.

It should be a matter of introspection for Indian Islamic scholars and Muslim intelligentsia to figure out if it is culturally viable to distance oneself from the Ganga-Jamuni tehjeeb like syncretism and pluralism of Islam in India.  We need to reflect on the larger implications of giving mention to a regimented idea of Islamic symbolism that finds resonance only in the history, culture and lifestyle of Saudi Arabia.  We also need to reflect on this totalitarianism to appropriate Islam within a specific geopolitical-scape mixing their articulations with local symbols in such a way that the mere entry of a local trait becomes a point of cultural conflict. How do we explain the psyche which emanates from Saudi Arabia and marches against the syncretic tradition of Indian Islam? How do we explain a systemic correction of Ramzan to Ramadan and Khuda Hafiz to Allah Hafiz?

In a typical poetic, Shakespearean way one may ask , “What’s in a name” and scuttle away from the questions around the logo. But if a logo were to represent the collective dreams and ideals of a group of people, then it is time to ensure that these symbols represent the collective aspirations of the same group.

Shoaib Daniyal, in an article in Scroll, points out – “Twisting the pronunciation of Ramzan does not serve any explicit theological purpose, but it does serve as a rather prominent cultural marker, signalling a significant change in the way Indian Muslims – specifically Urdu-speaking Muslims – look at their culture.” Is this longing for Saudi culture and aspiration for Saudi brand of Islam merely a reflection of an inferiority complex of local Muslims? Or is this an off-shoot of a larger plot in the wake of the recent geopolitical conflict and/or civilisational war? In any case, should there be no nationalistic challenge from within the community against this external co-option of our culture?

The author is a Senior Research Fellow & Project Head at India Foundation. The views expressed are his own.

Book Review:

‘Half Lion – How P.V. Narsimha Rao Transformed India’

Author: Vinay Sitapati

Publisher: Penguin Books Limited

Price: Rs.699/-

Book Review by: Jayraj Pandya

In a nation obsessed with the utopian vision presented by its founding Prime Minister and carried forward by his dynasty by being in power for all but five years till 1991, it is a highly improbable task to tinker with the status quo let alone bring about a transformation. It requires a man with the audacity of a lion, dwarfed as a mouse but equipped with the shrewdness of a fox, to achieve this improbability. The man who finally achieved this feat was none other than – Pamulaparti Venkata (PV) Narsimha Rao. At the age of 70, and with the intention to retire from active politics and become the head of a Hindu Monastery, Rao was presented with an invaluable opportunity to transform the nation. This book charts the journey of this man, from his origins in rural Andhra to the Prime Minister’s Office.

Half Lion is an  attempt by its author Vinay Sitapati to put forward an honest account of PV Narasimha Rao’s life. For the most part, the author does not get lured into a trap of making it a hagiography. With an extremely dramatic chapter to begin with (the author uses his journalistic experience to excellent use)  he describes the immediate events post the former Prime Minister’s death. Throughout the book, the author consistently weaves a narrative highlighting the apathy shown by the country’s grand old party for their first non-family Prime Minister to have completed a full term in office. (Late Lal Bahadur Shastry passed away within eighteen months of taking over as Prime Minister). With an access to Rao’s private papers, the author literally brings to life, several unknown facets of his subject’s life.

Rao’s tenure as the PM has been adequately documented and gets regularly featured in media stories but several critical aspects of his life have been mystifyingly neglected. The fact that PV, during his tenure as the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh was a devout socialist and tenuously pursued the cause of land reforms in his state, gives an illustration as to how markedly  he moved away from his economic thought-process when he became the Prime Minister.

Possessing an acute sense of understanding  the need of the hour was a precious gift Rao had.
When the country needed to deliver a message in 1994, despite opposition, Rao sent Atal Bihari Vajpayee as the Head of the Delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva which gave out  subtle but clear messages that the country was united on the Kashmor question and that he  put national interest  above everything else.

This book  brings out  the ability of Rao to adapt to circumstances. Gauging the fact that the newly elected young Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was not too supportive of the old guard, Rao made the most of the opportunities given to him. It was during his tenure as the  Minister for Human Resources Development that the New Education Policy was framed in  1986.

Moreover,  Rao realigned his thought process in order to acclimatise to the post Cold War World where free markets shall acquire the center stage based on his understanding of its benefits acquired during his several trips to the United States. His ability to adapt to technology, that too learning complex languages including coding at his age, was a perfect example of his open-mindedness.The book magnifies the most pertinent quality of the former Prime Minister- his reticence. His ability to keep a low profile and conform  as an underwhelming achiever gave him the enviable tag of  Ajatshatru (One whose enemy is not born). Various accounts from his political life also confirm the most famous quote associated with him i.e.- “Not taking a decision is also a decision”.

However there were a few areas which deserved a more elaborate description in the book but are  missing. The limited references to his family seem a deliberate attempt to keep the nature and behaviour of the family man Rao under  wraps.

Moreover, the author who is extremely deft at describing the political struggles of a minority government that Rao ran for a complete tenure of five years, is short of talking about the major allegations levelled against him including the Harshad Mehta scam as well as the JMM imbroglio.

Someone with access to the personal papers of such an compulsive reader and writer, could have surely written more about the these aspects of Rao’s life.  Or maybe it is the case what a renowned journalist was famously told by PV himself stands true to the T, “Let me take a few secrets to my grave.”

Notwithstanding these limited shortcomings, Half Lion is an outstanding attempt to give a balanced account of the PV Narasimha Rao, who many consider to be the best Congress PM India ever had.

In the conclusion, I would like to mention the most remarkable feature which I felt about the book. Just like the man himself, drawing inference from Hindu scriptures, the author drew a brilliant analogy of the name of the protagonist (Narsimha) with its actual meaning (sixth Avatar of  Vishnu) and then with its English translation (Half Lion), literally brought to life his personality- ‘Audacity of a lion warped with the charm of a dead Fish.’

Reviewer serves as an Assistant Private Secretary to a Minister of State, Govt. of India. The views expressed here are his own.

~ By : Ram Madhav

This subject, ‘Imprints of Colonialism in our Political Discourse’, is coming rather 75 years late. We should have settled this issue 65-70 years ago at the time of the Independence itself like many other countries. There was an excellent opportunity at that time to choose a different path. But we didn’t.

The Great Democracy Debate:

Not that nobody had thought about it. There was enough brainstorming over what would be the model that independent India should be following. Two different views emerged. One was that of Gandhiji who had always talked about Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya. Those who think that those concepts were utopian must understand that given a chance Gandhiji himself or many others who were with him on those issues would have certainly developed a blueprint for the same.

Talking of others behind Gandhi one name that comes to the mind immediately is that of Ram Manohar Lohia. Lohia was originally a diehard fan of Nehru. But on the question of the governance model he became a bitter critic of Nehru and supporter of Gandhiji. Like Gandhiji, Lohia too wanted a model that is indigenous and gels well with Indian genius.

Nehru viewed democracy and Westminster model government as the best option for independent India. He called it the ‘second best available form’. The best, according to him, was ‘yet to be invented’. Although not flawless the Westminster model democracy was seen as the available best model for India after Independence.

In that, interestingly, Nehru got the support of Dr. Ambedkar who believed that the Westminster model parliamentary democracy offered greater accountability to the masses although it is not good for political stability.

Gandhiji was not opposed to democracy per se. But he was concerned about the majoritarian streak in democratic polity. “Democracy is an impossible thing until the power is shared by all, but let not democracy degenerate into mobocracy”, he used to warn. History tells us that at a time when the world prided over democratically elected leaders like Roosevelt and Churchill the world had also produced Hitler and Mussolini through the same institution. That is why Gandhiji used to emphasise that true democracy is where ‘the power is shared by all’ and where ‘the weak enjoy as much power as the strong’.

Lohia detested the Westminster model as a wholly incompatible one for India. He was particularly uncomfortable with the argument that it brings in accountability. Lohia’s view was that the Westminster model doesn’t score high on accountability factor. Our experience in last seven decades proves him right.

A Written Constitution:

However we finally decided in our wisdom that we follow the British Parliament and adopt the Westminster model. The model derives its name from the place from where the British government operates, the Palace of Westminster in London. This model was introduced to us by the British through the Government of India Act of 1935.

Once that decision was taken it was also decided that we should have a written Constitution. Interestingly the world’s oldest democracy, Great Britain or the UK, unlike most modern states, does not have a codified written constitution. Even during their two centuries’ rule over India they didn’t follow any written constitution. UK has an unwritten constitution formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions. The United States of America has a written one that was adopted in June 1788 at the Philadelphia Convention. It was more like a social contract between the thirteen states that came together to declare freedom from British colonialists.

In the past history there were no records of Indian rulers depending on written constitutions to run their kingdoms. Even the much talked about Manu Smriti was never a codified constitution of any kingdom. It was like a contemporary moral code to be voluntarily accepted or rejected by the people. Our rulers mostly used to have an Amatya Sabha – Assembly of Ministers – drawn from eminent experts which would advise the ruler in matters of governance. Their wisdom and experience used to be the guiding light of the statecraft.

An ideal stage was conceived by our ancestors as one where there won’t be any state at all.

‘Na Raajyam Naiva Raajaaseet – Na Daandyo Na Cha Daandikah
Dharmenaiva Prajaah Sarve – Rakshanti Sma Parasparam’

(There won’t be any state nor will there be any king; Nobody to punish and nobody to be punished; People will protect each other on the basis of Dharma). Karl Marx also said something similar when he talked about the proletarian dictatorship giving way to withering away of the state.

However, post-independence, we toiled for three years to come up with a comprehensive constitution for India. Dr. Ambedkar played a crucial role in drafting this new constitution. The Constituent Assembly was comprised of great stalwarts who had thoroughly examined each and every clause before finally ratifying it on November 26, 1949. In the end we created a constitution that is not only comprehensive but also the best in the democratic world. It reassured every section of the Indian society, including the most marginalised sections, that the country will hereafter be guided by the rule of law.

It is almost seven decades since we started this journey. A big dilemma bothers us all. Is the Constitution supreme or the people manning it?

Eminent commentator of the American Constitution Joseph Story had warned that, “The constitution has bean reared for immortality, if the work of man may justly aspire to such a title. It may nevertheless perish in an hour by the folly or the corruption or negligence of its only keepers, the people”. It sounds as though the people are the real guarantee for its success.

Even Dr. Ambedkar had said the same thing about the Indian Constitution. “The Constitution can provide only the organs of the state such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of these organs of the state depend are the people or the political parties that they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics……”, he said.

Implicit in these two statements is the fact that Constitution by itself is not a guarantee as long as the holders of it are not good people. This is undeniably our experience in the last seven decades too.

The Three Pillars:

Look at the three pillars of our democracy – Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.

Legislators have today become all-powerful which is against the very ethos of this country. Chanakya had said that the king should lead the life of the last man in his kingdom. As for the Amatyas he himself presented the ideal through his personal life. But today’s situation is just the opposite. The legislator, an MLA or an MP is extremely powerful. The Legislature has even usurped the powers of the Executive. Even to appoint a primary school teacher in a village or a constable in a police station nothing moves without the approval of the local legislator. This very nature of concentrated power is the major attraction for many unscrupulous elements to get in.

The panacea lies in dis-incentivising the legislative positions. In many countries in the world the legislators enjoy all the powers only within the four walls of the legislature. Outside they are like any other common man. Can it be imagined in India?

The second pillar of the Executive, the Octopus like bureaucracy has also become an uncontrollable institution. The almost 20 million strong bureaucracy, with certainly some honourable exceptions, is today the most unaccountable institution of our government. Art 311 and several court judgements give the bureaucracy greater immunity. They are not only not accountable but also their jobs are largely secure. From Delhi to a Galli their reach and stranglehold is unthinkable. This one institution of the Westminster model has done so much damage to our governance than any other.

Major reforms are needed in making our bureaucracy work effectively. Lateral entry is one such reform to be thought of. Similarly we needed to create different cadre services for different jobs. For example a Sanskrit Service can be created to handle departments that deal with ancient wisdom in HRD, Culture, Tourism etc. We should be able to tap local talent for local development.

Talking of the above two pillars one major departure needed from the colonial system is decentralisation. Our Constitution is unitary in nature with certain powers divested to the states. Even in that the Centre creeps in through the Concurrent List. Genuine decentralisation is needed in order to effectively govern the country. India’s ancient tradition has been one of decentralisation and insularity of the communities from the activities of the king. Kings used to wage wars but the commoners would go on with their daily lives unhindered.

Prime Minister’s call for cooperative federalism is a right step in that direction. However this decentralisation should further extend to village panchayats also. Through 73rd and 74th Amendments we attempted to empower our panchayats. But that has remained half-baked with both centre and states not willing to cede powers. Through Panchayat Raj reforms the villages got some extra money, but no powers. In the ancient Indian system the Gram Sabhas – village self-governing units – enjoyed greater freedom and powers. We need to tweak the existing system to allow for greater powers to local self-governing units. That allows us to move in the direction of less governance and less corruption. As it is said, the best government is the one that governs the least.

The third pillar of judiciary also needs a major reform. Our judiciary is fiercely independent. We should not only respect this independence of our judiciary but also zealously guard it. But we shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the vagaries of this third pillar. Its inefficiency, tardiness and inaccessibility command urgent reform. More over our judiciary practises self-procreation. Judges produce judges. A more balanced and judicious system must be found in place of this practise. National Judicial Appointments Commission – NJAC – is one such good initiative. But unfortunately there is no agreement between the judiciary and the legislature over its structure.

Electoral reforms:

Besides the three pillars of our colonial Westminster system a major reform to be initiated is the electoral reform. First past the post system that we adopted might have worked well in the initial years when Congress party was the biggest pan-Indian party and it had the support of majority of the countrymen. But the present political fragmentation leading to electoral fragmentation calls the validity of the first-past-the-post electoral system itself into question.

A situation in Jharkhand some 15 years ago, described by Late Pramod Mahajan, aptly sums up the lacuna. On a visit to a foreign country as part of a delegation Mahajan had to introduce his delegation members from Jharkhand that included the Chief Minister also. The introduction went something like this: ‘Here is so and so whose party is the largest in Jharkhand Assembly, but he is the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly. Here is so and so whose party is the second largest but it supports the government from outside. Here is the third largest party which is a part of the ruling coalition, but decided not to join the government. Here are the members of the fourth largest party who are ministers in the Cabinet. And this man is the lone member of the fifth party in the Assembly and he is the Chief Minister’. Such miracles happen in our system leaving it totally unrepresentative of the most important element – ‘will of the people’.

Greek philosopher Plato was never fond of democracy. But he wanted philosopher kings to rule the kingdoms of the world. By that he meant intelligent and benevolent people. Joseph Story too warned that if good people stay away from politics thinking that it is murky and the bad capture power the best constitution in the world wouldn’t be able to save America.

Let me end with Plato’s warning to the good people:
“One penalty for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors”.

(This article is an excerpt from the speech of Shri Ram Madhav, National General Secreatary, Bharatiya Janata Party & Director, India Foundation at the Lokmanthan 2016 in Bhopal)