Lessons from Sri Lankan Success over Malaria

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 69th 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.

graph

 

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.

graph1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Nepal: One Year Later… Has Anything Changed?

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.

Strategising the Uniform Civil Code

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.

Indus Water Treaty Reconsideration and Ramification

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.

Arabization of Indian Muslims?

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.

aligarh-muslim-universityjamia-millia-islamiaannamalai-university

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 Reviews: “Half-Lion: How PV Narasimha Rao Transformed India”

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.

National Seminar on “Integral Humanism in Indian Thought”

India Foundation organized a two-day National Seminar on ‘Integral Humanism in Indian Thought’ at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi on 19-20 September, 2016. The seminar saw attendance from noted academicians, activists and students. The event started with floral tributes to Deendayal Upadhayay on the occasion of his centenary birth anniversary.

 

Deendayal was born on 25 September, 2016 at a small village in the Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh in North India. He was a social worker, educationist, economist, journalist, orator and above all a masterful organizer of men committed to the cause of nation-building in those turbulent days.

 

The Inaugural Session of the Conference was addressed by key thinkers of the day. Shri Mukul Kanitkar spoke of how Deendayal’s Integral Humanism is a holistic philosophy of our times and not merely an ideology meant to be used in a particular time and situation. He distinguished Deendayal’s Integral Humanism from M.N. Roy’s conception of Radical Humanism. He noted that the latter is bereft of any shade of spiritualism – something that cannot be divorced from humanism in the long run.

 

Highlighting the role of Integral Humanism in shaping India’s Education Policy for the 21st century, he observed that Deendayal’s vision accorded full space to diversity of views and opinions. Much in the same way that no two men look the same, none should be expected to think the same per force or compulsion. He also observed that this vision was not only relevant during the days of struggle but also in times when the people alighted by this thought have assumed power to change India for better.

 

intgral4Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma started his address by equating Integral Humanism with the entirety of the Indian political thought. He quoted from the Vedas to our contemporary times. He noted that Vedic invocations of ‘ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti’ meaning ‘truth is one, sages call it by various names’ and ‘mata bhumi putro ham prithiviyah’ meaning that ‘Earth is my mother and I am her son’ are the essence of Indian thought and that they inform every corner of Deendayal’s Integral Humanism. He also noted that this branch of sociological research eschews the false binaries of good or bad, thereby, opening a wide field for ideas that are both good and bad. This grey area is the plane where we have to find out our path of consensus through debates and discussions. Indian society, he shared, operates on the model of consensus.

 

Prof S.R. Bhatt delivered his presidential remarks to mark out that the idea of Integral Humanism is a holistic philosophy relevant not only in the past but also in present times. He said that chains of time and age do not bind this thought. Hence, he said that it isn’t a mere ideology represented by an ‘ism’ like many contemporary thoughts.

 

Prof Bhatt further remarked that Deendayal was both a thinker and a practitioner whose thought had both an ideological as well as a practical panache. On the front of ideology, Prof Bhatt noted, he was open to new ideas and on his practical side, he visualized that all the material creation is to be understood as human achievement. This, Prof Bhatt argued, does not mean that man is the measure of everything as encapsulated in the western thought.

 

Instead, the Indian mind comprehends the human being as ‘purusha’ who is all encompassing, Prof Bhatt said. It is man who makes society, which later becomes a nation. It is these nations, Prof Bhatt said, that finally constitute the world. Purusha is the best embodiment of Indian thought that identifies with unity in diversity and diversity in unity, Prof Bhatt argued. He asserted that integrity of human existence is what constitutes the essence of Integral Humanism of Deendayal.

 

Prof Bhatt further observed that all struggle, violence, hatred and jealousy are artificial and have no place in Indian thought. He further noted that  Modi government’s programs like Jan Dhan Yojna, Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, Beti Bachao Beti Padhao Yojna, Krishi Sinchai YojnaKaushal Vikas Yojna, Mudra Yojna, etc. are being implemented with this thought process in mind.

 

Prof. S.P. Mani gave his address a fitting start by recalling the Vedic dictums of ‘sarve bhavantu sukhina, sarve santu niramaya’ and ‘ten takten bhunjitah’ as the core or the foundational principles of Integral Humanism. He observed that balance is the key to success, whether in material pursuits or in the spiritual world. He outlined that Deendayal used sangam sanskriti to give India her swaroop. He argued that the essential features of India’s swaroop include acceptance, validation, celebration, gender justice and sustainable development.

 

intgra2In his remarks Prof. K.B. Pandya raised the question, “What is India’s ‘chiti’?” He urged to locate the answer to this question in India’s own store house of wisdom- Ramayana and Mahabharata. Dr. Ashok Modak in his enlightening remarks took up the task of identifying the key features of Deendayal’s conception of Integral Humanism and noted that service to motherland, optimism of the Indian mind, spirituality, integrity, openness to change and the holistic approach to deal with issues are key themes within that thought strain.

 

Prof. K.C. Pandey spoke on ‘Integral Humanism and Ancient Indian Thought’. His address was focused on how consciousness is the foundation of all that exists. Mr. Govardhan Bhatt elaborated on the need of synergy between science and spirituality. He also remarked that Deendayal was a true follower of the advaita tradition of Shri Adi Shankaracharya.

 

Mr. Krishore Dere spoke of Deendayal’s insistence on self-reliance in economy and predominance of agriculture as the hallmarks of Indian independence. Ms. Shikha Sharma observed that a solid foundation of society could be built on the foundations of advaita vedanata. Mr. Shubham Verma spoke about the recent trend of discarding all that is indigenous in India as unworthy of possession and observed that India will take its rightful place in the world community only when we stay true to our roots.

 

intgral3Mr. Rajiv Dubey spoke on ‘Integral Humanism and Education in India Today’ and observed that the scene is both full of hope and despair at the same time. He explained that hope is reflected in the ideas of Deendayal and despair is reflected in the illusive dream of Nehruvian consensus. Shri Ashok Pandurang spoke about the need to reignite the flames of cultural nationalism in India. He reminded the guests that India is not merely a country but also a mother for all of us. Shri Raghav Pandey spoke on the theme of ‘Integral Humanism and the Sustainable Way of Life’ and observed that going by the present rate of consumption of resources in rich and affluent sectors of the society we would require two and a half earths to meet the global development needs. He highlighted that in Indic thought man and nature are integral to each other unlike the West where man is sovereign over nature and all that exists is made for his consumption. In an interesting analogy he observed that even Kyoto Protocol fails to acknowledge that trees have spiritual value and focuses excessively on their economic value alone.

 

Shri Rambahadur Rai observed that ideas of Deendayal are in line with the basic texts of Gandhiji’s Hind Swaraj and Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s Geeta Rashaya. In a way, Deendayalji’s exposition of Integral Humanism in the course of his four lectures is a logical extension of the line
of thinking as expounded in Hind Swaraj, Mr. Rai said.

 

The second day of the Conference began with Shri Guru Prakash’s talk on ‘Integral Humanism and Social Justice in India Today’. He pointed at the empirical data to argue that social disparities between the rich and the poor and those between castes and communities are widening day by day. He said that Deendayal’s vision of Integral Humanism seeks to redress the malady by ensuring equitable distribution of resources. He also pointed out that it is neither possible nor wise to adopt foreign ‘-isms’ in India and that the need of hour is to abandon the artificial constructs of right and left in order to ensure the ultimate goal of antyodaya. He also observed that most post-colonial academic researches on social justice have focused on caste system’s divisive and oppressive features extensively but have erred in failing to take stock of Hinduism’s continuous and unending processes of course correction. In this regard he pointed out at the example of hundreds of Dalit saints in India like Sant Chokhamela, Sant Janabai, Sant Ravidas and Guru Ghasi Das, etc.

 

Shri Digvijay Singh emphasized on Integral Humanism being an alternative to contemporary discourse. Ms. Chandani Sengupta spoke on ‘Integral Humanism and Swami Vivekananda’ highlighting that Swami Vivekananda was always clear that the only true humanism is the one that involves dignity and fraternity of all, thereby making it incumbent on our rich to care for the poor and the under-privileged. She said that both Vivekananda and Deendayal thought of service to mankind as the best way of man making.

 

Dr. Apoorv Mishra spoke on a comparative study of Danndayal’s Integral Humanism and Jacques Maritain’s Integral Christian Humanism. He pointed out that both scholars agree in their rejection of capitalism, individualism, socialism and communism. He further said that both of them emphasized on the role of religion in shaping political ideas and in building a society rooted in its culture. But where they disagree, he points out, is the fact that Integral Christian Humanism assumes its thesis to be self-evident as is God in Christian theology while Deendayal follows the Vedantic model of shastrartha in the form of debate and discussion.

 

Dr. Sethuraman Rammohan spoke on ‘Integral Humanism in the Light of Quantum Physics’ in accordance with the Vedic dictum ‘yadpinde tad brahmande’. He also pointed out that Integral Humanism is a holistic system of total harmony between individual, society and nature and that integral man has a comprehensive view of the four purusharthas of dharma, artha, kaam and moksha. Prof. Dilip Kumar Mohanta spoke of the need for practical idealism and the relevance of Deendayal’s ideas in building a happy and prosperous nation. Mr. Chintamanib Malyiya identified Deendayal’s ideas as a continuous stream of thought in harmony with those of Swami Vivekananda, Shri Aurobindo, Gandhiji and Babasaheb Ambedkar.

Valedictory Session

Shri Ram Madhav spoke of quintessential importance of Deendayal’s ideas to Indian political thought. He highlighted that soon after independence India embarked upon a mission to build itself on the ‘socialistic pattern of society’ and asked what we have achieved by socialistic development model apart from bureaucratic five year plans and centralization of power. He said that Deendayal was a firm believer in India centric world view rather than blind aping of the West. West’s political and economic thought considers man as an economic animal. Freud observed that man’s ultimate goal is to fulfill his desires. As against these ideas, Integral Humanism as propounded by Deendayal conceives a society that is free from all discrimination, disease and want.

 

Shri Krishnagopal spoke on the need of consensus building and balanced life as integral traits of Integral Humanism. He believed that democracy in India is not a gift of the West and held a firm view that the Indian polity after independence has been raised upon artificial Western foundations, hence is not rooted in the timeless traditions of India’s ancient culture. He was sure that the Indian intellect was getting suffocated by Western theories and ideologies and consequently there was a big roadblock on the growth and expansion of original Bharatiya thought. He hailed modern technology/science but wanted it to be adapted to suit Indian requirements. He believed in a constructive approach. He exhorted his followers to co-operate with the government when it was right and fearlessly oppose it, when it erred. He placed nation’s interest above everything else. Another key theme of his philosophy was enlightened self-interest of Indian people which meant that we achieve the best for ourselves without harming the interests of others.

 

The two day National Seminar came to satisfactory conclusion by generating greater academic awareness about Deendayal’s thoughts. True to Deendayal’s life and his message, the audience resolved to continue with shastrartha on how to implement Deendayal’s vision in India today.

Aakrosh Journal No. 71, Vol. 19

Now, a new dangerous threat is on the horizon, a threat of deadly attacks across the world by minions of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The brazen terror attacks across the globe, from Paris, Brussels and Turkey to Bamako and Indonesia are meant to send a chilling message to the civilized world. These attacks were not launched to cause merely material damage but were calculated to spread fear and despondency among the targeted populations…

Aakrosh Journal No. 72, Vol. 19

On 1 July, Islamic fanatics shouting, ‘Allahu Akbar’, attacked an upscale cafe in Dhaka, killing 20 foreigners. Although the attack was claimed by the Islamic State (IS), it was basically the handiwork of home-grown groups inspired by IS ideology. This attack indicated a major change in the pattern of attacks witnessed over the past 18 months on individuals advocating secular values and moderate religious culture…

Aakrosh Journal No. 73, Vol. 19

The attack on the Uri base camp on 18 September by a well-trained Pakistani terror group brought to light a new Pakistani ball game in Kashmir. It linked the unrest in Kashmir with cross-border terrorism and revealed new Pakistani designs of escalating violence in J&K. The Indian response came on the night of 29/30 September in the shape of meticulously planned midnight pre-emptive strike on terrorist launching pads and bases across the Line of Control (LOC) in three different locations. Significant casualties were inflicted on the terrorists poised to launch attacks…

Symposium on “One Nation One Election”

India Foundation is organising a one-day symposium on One Nation, One Election on November 26, 2016 to celebrate Constitution Day at at Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, Teen Murti Bhawan, New Delhi.

one-nation-one-election-invitationThere has been a discussion on  holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabhas at various levels of the government. However, several constitutional and legal changes will be needed to conduct simultaneous election, including possibility of Constitutional amendments to Articles 83, 172, 85 and 174 to streamline the process. The symposium will cover the above-mentioned topics.
Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad (Union Minister for Law and Justice), Shri Suresh Prabhu (Union Minister for Railways) and Dr. S Y Quraishi (Former Chief Election Commissioner) will be some of the speakers at this symposium.

Imprints of Colonialism in our Political Discourse

~ 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)

India’s National Narrative

Modern India since 1947 is not a new nation but the rebirth of a profound and enduring ancient civilization. In this regard India has been compared with Israel, which was also reestablished in l947, though India’s size and influence is more extensive.

India is one of the most ancient civilizations in the world with roots going back five thousand years, with a continuous literature, institutions and records. Trade with India is mentioned since ancient Egypt, Babylonia, Greece and Rome, and Columbus discovered America looking for India.

India has its own extensive set of religions, philosophies, arts and sciences that are vast, diverse and detailed in regard to all aspects of life. India’s civilization dominated Indonesia and Indochina for many centuries and its influence spread from Central Asia to Japan.

The Debate over the Idea of India

There has been a new debate about the “idea of India” and what the country represents. Some modern thinkers would like to dissociate the idea of modern India from that of ancient India. They regard India’s older history as representing only one section of India’s population and as backward in nature. They view modern India as a different type of multicultural modern state, following other principles and practices than those of older India.

Another group of thinkers – which dominated India’s independence movement – regards modern India as a continuation of older India going back to Rama, Krishna, Buddha, the Vedas and India’s dharmic traditions. Mahatma Gandhi with his idea of Ram Rajya projected this image of India in his values and even in his dress, but was only one of many independence leaders who did this.

The attempt to link modern and ancient India has been criticized by leftist and Marxist thinkers, who denounce it as a kind of Hindu majoritarianism. Yet Hindu and dharmic traditions continue to be followed by the great majority of Indians, a fact that cannot be ignored. Samuel Huntington in his famous book the Clash of Civilizations identified India and Hinduism as one of the great civilizations of the world.

India’s main influence on the modern world has occurred through its spiritual teachings and dharmic traditions of Yoga, Vedanta and Buddhism, extending to India’s traditional art, music and dance. It is this ancient or perennial India that the world recognizes as India, not the India of Delhi’s Nehruvian elite.

Failure of the Left and Socialism in India

Modern India has been dominated by the “secular socialist” idea of government, which Indira Gandhi introduced into the nation’s constitution, and Nehru had already set in motion. This created a policy of ignoring India’s magnificent past and looking at the country as post-1947 for its identity. India’s history textbooks, of which Marxist thinkers have been their main writers, have often denigrated India’s dharmic civilization.

The same constitution of modern India identifies India with Bharat – India’s ancient name going back to one of the great Vedic kings long before the time of the Buddha. Yet there is little mention of India as Bharat in the discussion of the idea of India today.

India up to 1991 followed the same type of state socialism as the Soviet Communist Block. Even today in 2016 much of the old socialist bureaucracy remains intact and is supported by media and academic groups who are also resistant to new development agendas.

Much of the left in India is regressive, looking back to the failed revolutions of the twentieth century and socialist agendas that were unsuccessful everywhere in the world where these were implemented. India’s economy has only developed in recent years because of a gradual setting aside of these socialist policies.

Such leftist socialist groups try to divide India by regional and caste lines to bring their own smaller parties into power. They resist recognizing India’s great civilizational past as national unity does not support their local divide and rule agendas.

The Need for a Cultural Revival in India

A country stands on its culture, whether it is Britain, Russia, China, USA or India. India does not need to deny its culture, particularly when it is vast and profound, in order to advance in the world. It needs to update its cultural ethos in light of the new technology, emphasizing democratic principles and a universal vision, but this can be done without denying the dharmic roots of its civilization.

India’s cultural renewal is already occurring with Indians both in India and abroad at the cutting edge of world civilization in both information technology, on one hand, and the new orientation towards yoga and meditation based spirituality, on the other. This has occurred not by renouncing India or Bharat’s ancient civilization – but by highlighting its orientation towards knowledge and higher consciousness that is one of the main driving forces in global progress today.

Dr. Frawley (D.Litt, Padma Bhushan) is the Founder and Director of American Institute of Vedic Studies. Views expressed by the author are strictly personal.

Social Media @70

There have been few things in the world as disruptive as the Internet. In its formative years, the Internet promised a great deal of potential in how it could transform how people consumed information but it was only much later, and need I say, till the advent of social media that it’s true transformative potential became evident.

The emergence of social media platforms along with rapid innovations in handheld technologies has meant that almost every individual on this planet is somehow linked to the wider audience on the World Wide Web. Whether it is students, social activists, scientists, special interest enthusiasts or businesses, big or small are today leveraging social media platforms to put across their points of view and products and communicating beyond traditional means. From sharing views on the new restaurant in town to ushering in revolutions that have over thrown regimes, it is all happening on social media.

Various studies have put the number of people using smart phones in India at about 200Mn. This number is projected to rise to a staggering 650Mn by the year 2019. These are gigantic numbers considering many more use feature phones and access internet through desktops. Almost 1Bn people are using wireless telecom services. 140Mn Indians today are on Facebook and close to 40Mn on Twitter. Mobile data consumption per user in India is expected to reach 1,704Mb/month by 2020, a steep jump over 185Mb/month today. This to me indicates a tectonic shift in the way we are communicating. It is my firm belief that these new mediums of expression are fundamentally changing us as a society. We are becoming more extrovert and expressive, impact of which can be felt in the way people are engaging on issues of public importance.

Social media has democratised the discourse. Today it is no more the exclusive domain of a few to set the narrative on things that matter to the people. Research and opinion making on art, culture, history and politics isn’t confined to tax funded institution and academics therein. There are opinions and counter opinions, there are debates and established narratives are being questioned, if they are found wanting. Ones cultivated reputation as a commentator isn’t good enough anymore, the force of arguments matter. And what is most interesting is that social media is facilitating this churn. There is a sudden rise of independent voices, researchers, amateur historians and blogging enthusiasts, who have created a niche for themselves. The power of their ideas and articulation has earned them a committed readership, which is growing rapidly. In yesteryears many of them would have gone unnoticed because they couldn’t find a publisher or a newspaper editor did not give them space. But internet and social media has changed all that. Today they can publish and share their work widely. Digital media has reduced the cost of reaching an audience that would be otherwise excluded.

But is social media (blogs, Twitter, etc) good for society? That depends on other factors. By itself social media is value-free. That is true of all tools we use. The utility of instruments and consequently the value depends on the use we put them to.

I believe that social media expands our ability to communicate cheaply. What gets communicated may be socially beneficial or harmful. Megaphones are useful for broadcasting a voice but if everyone starts communicating simultaneously, you’d lose all coherence. It would end up as noise, not signal. Too many people talking at the same time makes it hard to listen.  We as consumers of information need better filters in a world that is drowning in too much of it. What we need is not information but knowledge. Too much information is a definite barrier to knowledge and therefore to understanding.

What we are going to see is the emergence of trusted channels and curated content. To avoid being overwhelmed by the quantity of information sloshing around in our environment, we need better barriers to useless information. Quality, variety and quantity are not unrelated. Moreover the relationship is complex. The range of quality and variety expands with quantity but the proportion of high quality material shrinks relative to the total quantity.

Let’s take a simple analogy. Music. We have a lot more music produced today than was produced in the 1960. The good music of the 1960s was, say, 30 percent of the total produced. Let’s put a number: 1000 songs total and of that 300 were good. Now in the 2010s, a million songs are produced with only 1 percent of them good, or 10,000 good music pieces. And of those good songs, let’s say 1 percent are truly great songs. So we have 100 great songs. The top end has moved up but the bottom end has dropped very low. Thus the range (and the variety) had expanded but the percentage of good or great has shrunk. Therefore we need to put more effort to find the truly exceptional songs — 100 out of a million. It is a more difficult task although the rewards of doing the search is high too.

Social media has increased the quantity of good information but the search cost of good information has risen due to the rise in quantity of bad or worthless information. Therein perhaps lies the next big opportunity on social media.

Amit Malviya is In-charge of BJP’s national Information & Technology, ex-banker and an early stage investor. The views expressed by author are strictly personal.

India-Myanmar Relations: Frontiers of a New Relationship

~ By : Gautam Mukhipadhyaya

India-Myanmar relations are poised to take-off, cross existing frontiers and attain new dimensions. We are on the threshold of a new Myanmar; Prime Minister Modi’s economic policies and energetic diplomacy promise to place the Indian economy into a qualitatively high growth path and India itself in the forefront of the international community; and with structural changes under way in the Arab world, Europe, not to forget challenges in the US and China, the world itself is in the throes of uncertainty and (possible) metamorphosis.

Together, these developments throw, as the cliché goes, both challenges and opportunities as some countries and regions face shocks and prospects of relative decline and others, emerge. How could India and Myanmar avoid the pitfalls of the first and capitalise on the possibilities of the second? Could India and Myanmar forge a strategic economic partnership in which we could be a major partner in new Myanmar’s democratic transition and sustainable economic development, and Myanmar could provide India an economic base to expand its presence in the nascent ASEAN Economic Community and the Greater Mekong sub-region up to the South China Sea and the South Pacific? Could India and Myanmar together with the other members of BIMSTEC, build a truly prosperous Bay of Bengal Community linking South and South East Asia?

While it is tempting to touch on the whole spectrum of the agenda of this Conference, I would concentrate in some detail on one strategic initiative that according to me deserves special attention: our economic relationship, in particular the role that Indian investment in Myanmar could play in promoting India-Myanmar relations, contributing to Myanmar’s economic development after nearly 50 years of self-imposed and forced isolation, and expanding India’s economic presence and political profile in South East Asia. This emphasis would mean the relative negligence of political, security, cultural and people to people initiatives.

It is commonplace at present to talk about India’s ‘Look’ and ‘Act East’ policy, and the North East of India as a gateway for it, but so far, discussions and initiatives in this regard have taken place largely in terms of trade and connectivity. The idea of Indian investment, especially private sector investment in Myanmar, has not really entered into India’s vocabulary as a separate category that requires a conscious policy, strategy and attention at the political and industry level.

Indeed, the rhetoric of ‘Act East’, ‘gateway’, ‘trade and connectivity’, etc. has tended to be framed in terms of an outlet for and development of the North East, and access to the markets of the ASEAN and South East Asia, with Myanmar implicitly as a ‘transit’ country. Though a bit of a simplification, this tends to overlook the potential of the Myanmar economy, or of its value to us for our economy, or of Indian investment in Myanmar as a ‘base’ and or ‘spring board’ for India towards the South China Sea and South Pacific. This is not a one-sided proposition and would benefit both sides.

This means that in the process a huge opportunity is missed that others are already cashing in on. In fact, Japan has already done that with Thailand in a previous generation and reaping the rewards in terms of market entry into south East Asia, and is now doing that in Myanmar. Similarly, Thailand has been aggressively promoting its products in Myanmar and pushing westwards through land and, via the planned SEZ in Dawei, the sea.

China’s investments have been mostly extractive, but even they are moving towards more strategic investments in oil and gas pipelines, a deep sea port, and a Special Economic Zone Kyaukphyu, and if they could help it, road and rail connectivity from Yunnan to Kyaukphyu, both as an outlet for Yunnan and access to the Bay of Bengal as part of its OBOR strategy. This obviously has strategic implications for India, which too have not been adequately realised.

Admittedly, all three have had a head start over us. But why has India, which has had the deepest cultural links of all three through history, and the closest administrative, trade, connectivity, migration and people-to-people ties for 150 years through British rule and 15 years of the post-independence until the 1960s, not realised the value of Myanmar as an investment destination?

How is it that despite the fact that India and Myanmar are cultural and geographical neighbours that share 1,600 kms of land boundary and a comparable maritime boundary in the Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea, both countries do not think of themselves as neighbours psychologically in the same way as we think of Bangladesh or Nepal, or Pakistan, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Afghanistan, or even Singapore, Thailand, Mauritius or Malaysia, further away?

Similarly, in 50 years, Myanmar, a country that once tilted culturally towards India, has turned its face definitively towards the east; and now also looks to the West, ‘overlooking’ India as it were. We are neighbours, but practically strangers. Despite a huge Indian origin diaspora in Myanmar, Myanmar’s once large post-1960s population of Indian returnees, and a Myanmar exile population in India during the period of military rule, we hardly know each other. We hardly know our diaspora in Myanmar either. All that most Indians know about Myanmar is the saga of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

Is severance from British yoke and 50 years of reclusive and sanctioned military rule enough to cause such mental amnesia on both sides?

Further, why we do not as yet think of Myanmar as a land of economic opportunities, which is undoubtedly is? This is even more puzzling if we look around us.

It is obvious that Myanmar is our most well-endowed neighbour. With an area of 653,000 sq kms, it is second in size only to Pakistan (and about the same size as Afghanistan), but with a population density of only 82 per sq km, [higher than only Bhutan (20) and Afghanistan (48) in South Asia], and less populated than Bangladesh or Pakistan, by a factor of more than three.

It is strategically located between the huge markets and geo-politically important centres of India, China and the ASEAN. It has perhaps those most valuable of natural resources, plenty of land, water and sun. It has fertile agricultural land and potential, and rich forests. It has oil & gas, precious stones like rubies and jade, precious metals like gold, and copper and lesser metals in abundance.

It is poor but not as poor as most of populous South Asia (with a GDP per capita of US$ 1,228). It is a country with high social capital and degree of equality, and a relatively educated, culturally disciplined, and easily trainable work force. It is still a low cost economy. It has almost everything an investor could want and need.

Not that this was unknown to us. In our ancient history Myanmar was the original ‘swarnabhumi’ or golden land, ’Brahmadesh’, the land of Brahma. Just 100 years back, it was seen as a land of opportunity for hundreds of thousands of migrants from practically all parts of India. In his highly readable book, ‘the River of Lost Footsteps’, Thant Myint U notes that at one time between the wars, Myanmar received, under British rule, as many or more migrants than New York or the United States, almost entirely from India! Downtown Rangoon was practically an Indian city (and still bears the character of one).

Until Gen. Ne Win’s military coup in the 1960s, it was the Bangkok of today, a crucial transit point in the air routes to the east and west (and even to the Andaman Islands). Rangoon University was arguably the foremost university in South East Asia. Myanmar was in the forefront of the region, not part of the CLMV (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Vietnam), the least developed countries of the ASEAN. It produced civil servants of the class of U Thant.

It is my considered view that with the reforms unleashed by President U Thein Sein’s government, the voice and power of the people especially its talented youth liberated by the remarkable November 2015 elections which has brought the NLD to government, and its current growth rate of around 8% (albeit from a low base), Myanmar could easily become the new tiger economy on the block in 5-10 years, not just any tiger economy, but a large tiger economy whose roar could be heard well beyond the region. All the more reason why India should take it seriously.

It is true that there are also challenges: of peace, reconciliation, a not yet fully democratic constitution, a lack of, or poorly developed civil institutions; issues of land ownership, records, titles and forced or disputed acquisitions; need for a modern and enabling legal and regulatory environment; political stability and risk; and political, environmental and social opposition to some projects and investments. Not all is well between the elected government and the military. The constitution is disputed. The new government lacks administrative experience, and is still trying to craft its polices for peace and development.

But these are all being addressed. Most of the all, the leadership is rational and enlightened; highly educated expatriates are returning, the young generation keen to catch up with the world, and the public increasingly involved in decision-making. Issues are being debated. It is a thoughtful process.

It is fortunate in that between India and Myanmar, there are really no contentious political issues, and the few areas that require attention are not intractable and could be addressed reasonably. India also enjoys cordial, if not necessarily close relations with virtually all political forces in Myanmar. India should actively support and play a constructive role in Myanmar’s democratic transition, peace process, and sustainable economic growth and development.

Not that the Government of India has been inactive. In fact, successive governments have followed a very thoughtful policy on Myanmar since independence but particularly since the challenge posed by Gen. Ne Win’s coup. They have, in different phases covered political, security, trade, connectivity and development initiatives, but not the idea of Indian investment in Myanmar.

India’s initiatives in the areas of connectivity and development are particularly impressive. Not many know or are aware, that the total value of the Government of India’s development commitment to Myanmar totals nearly US$ 2 bn, US$ 1.2 bn on connectivity, capacity-building, social infrastructure and border area development projects, and another nearly USS$ 750 million on soft lines of credit for physical infrastructure such as power transmission lines, roads, irrigation, telecommunications, industry and rail transport according to priorities set by the Government of Myanmar for projects that it often cannot find financing for elsewhere.

This compares favourably with the most generous donors. To the best of my knowledge, no other country is fully funding and executing physical connectivity projects of the scale of the Kaladan project and the Tamu-Kalay-Kalewa-Yargyi roads and bridges that are part of the trilateral highway; nor mentoring high value, state of the art, capacity building projects like the Myanmar Institute of Information Technology (MII) and the Advanced Centre for Agricultural Research and Extension (ACARE) as India is, not even major donors like Japan, the European Union or even China which as a direct interest in connectivity. Not many even in Myanmar seem fully aware of this.

But while the Indian government is doing a lot in the area of development, our development partnership needs some tweaking and diversification. Most of our projects are infrastructure oriented, capital intensive, and once completed, be hands off. The human dimension has been limited. This is one reason why its public impact has been low compared to many western, Japanese and Korean projects.

We need to broaden the engagement to target first, the grassroots, through initiatives in agricultural extension, livestock, fisheries, decentralised, non-conventional energy, rural agro-based and other industries, garments and light manufacturing etc. where the large mass of Myanmar are concentrated and form the base of the economy; the intermediate strata through school, college, vocational and English language education that forms the catchment area for stronger social and cultural relations, through arrangements for the education of Myanmar students in Myanmar and India; and the business and intellectual elite through higher education, academic, university, professional and civil society linkages in the sciences, management, IT, accounting, law, development and all the other disciplines necessary for a modern economy.

We also need to decrease our dependence on large government executed or government-to-government projects, and diversify our development partnership to include proven NGOs, cooperatives, SMEs, and even United Nations development organisations on a case to case basis. We have so far been wary of involving these two categories that other, mainly western countries use to great effect, but both these categories have much greater capacity to get to the grassroots than government organisations and entities.

More importantly, we have been lagging behind the rest of Asia (and even Europe and the US) in the commercial economic arena. As you drive in from the spanking new airport into a booming Yangon, amidst the numerous Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Singaporean, Korean, Taiwanese, European, Gulf and even Vietnamese brands advertised, there is not a single Indian brand (except to a very small extent, Tatas) to be seen.

In trade, we have slipped from third place in 2011 to 5th place now with a bilateral trade of approx. US$ 2 bn, not because our trade has gone down, but because others, notably Singapore ($5 bn) and Japan (2.3 bn) have overtaken us. This is not at all commensurate with our proximity, historical ties, and size of our economy and market, and compares very unfavourably with Myanmar’s principal land and economic neighbours, China and Thailand. China’s official trade stands at over US$ 10 bn; Thailand’s at about US$ 6 bn; but if we include the high volumes of unofficial trade, would be considerably higher. We have not been able to achieve our trade target of US$ 3 bn for 2015 set in 2011. Yet others, like Korea and Malaysia, are catching up.

Tellingly, with much of the trade being Myanmar exports of primary agricultural and forest products, and Indian exports, except pharmaceuticals, mainly engineering goods, Indian brands and consumer goods which give visibility, are generally absent.

But those figures are not as negative as they look if we consider that we were Myanmar’s third largest trade partner until 2011 through 40 years of a political and economic hiatus in our relationship caused by nationalisation, suppression of democracy, isolation and sanctions, when, for various reasons, China and Thailand became much more plugged in to the Myanmar economy. The core of that trade has been Myanmar exports of beans and pulses and timber.

The importance of this trade for both sides can be appreciated if we realise that while exports from 1.8 MT of rice, easily Myanmar’s most important food crop, in 2014-15 (the highest in 50 years, 50% of which is sold to China), earned Myanmar US$ 644 million, exports of beans & pulses (approx. of 1.54 million metric tons), 75-80% to India, accounts for over US$ 1 bn in export earnings for Myanmar. India is also Myanmar’s third largest export market overall, and Myanmar, India’s second largest source of beans and pulses, a politically sensitive commodity. The beans and pulses export of over 1 million tonnes to India is therefore the single largest export item of Myanmar to any country.

The fundamentals of this trade relationship are therefore strong, and grown steadily through thick and thin regardless of the political weather. It therefore represents the base line in our trade relationship. In fact, given the political and economic openings of the last few years, the complementarity of our two economies, India’s current rate of growth, and the untapped potential of Indian exports and Indian investments in Myanmar, India-Myanmar trade should grow faster than those of Myanmar’s other neighbours whose trade is more saturated.

Indian industrial goods, pharmaceutical products and IT services have started entering the Myanmar market and enjoy a good reputation for quality, but given the head start that our competitors have, cost and price considerations, and the logistical handicaps we will continue to face, it is unlikely that we will be able to catch up with either of them or compete with several other players, through trade alone.

In my view the only way this can be done is if we build on the comparative advantages of Myanmar already outlined, and the market access to the AEC, India, ASEAN FTA partners and the EU that Myanmar can provide to actually also produce and manufacture in Myanmar for these markets. Taking China as an example, given Chinese pricing, we cannot compete with China in Myanmar by exports from India alone. But we can (compete with them) even beyond Myanmar (in the ASEAN and even China itself), if we combine lower factor costs of production in the CMLV countries with Indian technology and management and build a brand image in the region around quality, cost and reliability that India is already beginning to enjoy. I believe that India could also compete with Japan on the cost-quality index on many products if these were produced locally.

In so doing, our companies would also raise domestic industrial and service capabilities, create new employment opportunities, and add value to local products (that Myanmar is seeking from foreign investors), and create a symbiotic and productive (rather than extractive) economic relationship between India and Myanmar that would benefit both.

So far however, private sector Indian investment in Myanmar has been disappointing. Today, in contrast to the Government’s development investment commitment of nearly US$ 2 bn, India ranks only 9th in FDI, amounting to approx. US$ 730 million, with public sector oil and gas PSUs accounting for over US$ 500 million and the private sector accounting for only about US$ 200 million.

By way of comparison, approved Chinese investments stand at over US$ 18 bn or over 28% of all FDI (a major part of it in extractive industries such as mining and hydro-power); Singapore, US$ 13 bn (20.5%), Thailand, US$ 10 bn (16.5%), Hong Kong, US$ 7.35% (11.5%), Korea,  US$ 3.5 bn (5.5%), and Malaysia, nearly 2 bn (3%). 2 European countries stand in the top 10, UK with over US$ 4 bn (6.4%), and The Netherlands, nearly US$ 1 bn (1.5%). Vietnam and late comer, Japan stand at 10th and 11th.

The are several reasons for this: Myanmar’s self-imposed isolation and externally imposed sanctions; our mental amnesia towards each other as neighbours, lack of connectivity, especially air connectivity that is crucial as our trade becomes more service oriented; lack of banking channels; and perhaps also a risk averse Indian industry. These are gradually being addressed, but will need some gestation time.

But the most important reasons are two others. First, as has already been pointed out, Myanmar falls in a cognitive and information blind spot for Indian industry. How many Indian investors think of Myanmar as a neighbour, and a resource rich neighbour at that? Or appreciate the strategic economic value of Myanmar for our ‘Act East’ policy? Or the importance of Mandalay as distribution centre for goods from the north, south, east or west? Or have even heard of the SEZ’s in Myanmar, Thilawa, Dawei, or Kyaukphyu?

And second, that we have rarely thought of Indian investment abroad as an arm of our foreign policy or as an instrument of political and economic influence. All our efforts have revolved around building domestic industrial capacity, with foreign investment and integration global value chains as the relatively elements. Though there are growing exceptions, Indian industrialists too have thought more in terms of the domestic market than global markets, and when they have, the reasons have sometimes been questionable.

Perhaps, in our ambivalence towards Indian investment abroad there is a fear that this would mean an outflow of badly needed investment and jobs that could be had in India. This would be somewhat short-sighted because ‘Make in India’ does not have to be at the expense of ‘Made by India abroad’. There are comparative advantages in investing abroad in many cases, and opportunity costs of not doing so.

To give an example, Indian garment manufacturers investing in Myanmar’s SEZs, could get additional access to the European market (and hopefully in future, the US also) that they cannot get from India. Conversely, global chains and companies from Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Japan and others will cash in on the opportunity, as they are already doing, and we will be the losers.

At the very least, our neighbourhood could be integrated into our ‘Make in India’ campaign through PM’s ‘neighbourhood first’ policy as indeed it seems to have been envisaged in the North-East India-Myanmar industrial corridor that is part of ‘Make in India’.

With a view to working out the different areas of Myanmar’s economy that Indian investment could flow into, I would propose a fresh strategy for India than prevailing trends and orthodoxy.

Out of a total, cumulative approved foreign investment of US$ 67 bn in Myanmar until May 2016, over 66%, or two-thirds, are destined for the oil & gas and power sectors, sectors that require heavy investments and that are not particularly employment intensive. About 4.5% goes into mining (that is extractive), 5% into real estate and construction (that is mostly in the luxury segment for the wealthy and expatriates), and only 10.3% into manufacturing, 8% into transport and communication, and about 4% into hotels and tourism that are employment generating. Only a little over 1% is going into livestock, fisheries and agriculture where nearly 70% of Myanmar’s population is engaged in.

As we can see, the pattern of foreign investment in Myanmar is in the most capital intensive and revenue generating rather than employment generating sectors, and is bypassing the vast majority of the people. Additionally, notwithstanding the rhetoric of sustainability, inclusivity and equitability advocated by major international development and financial institutions and foreign investors on grounds of need, scale and viability, large, capital intensive projects tend also to be the ones that are the most socially, economically and environmentally disruptive, forcing people from the countryside into cities, from inner cities to shanty towns on the outskirts and suburbs, and with the greatest environmental impacts.

Of course, large projects are also required, but as a matter of development and investment strategy, I would advocate a very different approach for India. Having undertaken major connectivity projects which will serve Myanmar’s development and our trade interests, we should now focus our development and investment efforts towards the base of the economic pyramid where the largest numbers of Myanmar are engaged in their livelihoods, sectors like agriculture, livestock, fisheries, agriculture and food processing, and light industries including garments, and the infrastructure support for them like small irrigation projects, renewable energy for the countryside and rural industries, vocational training, education, etc.

These are precisely those areas where the least investment is now heading, and where small investments, spread wide, would benefit the largest number of people directly, be least disruptive, and bring about equitable development from the base of the economy upward. This would also be a good political investment at the level of the people.

One of the fundamental problems for investment at this level and sectors is that while it is not difficult to find financing for large projects and investments, mobilising finance for small scale investments and for SMEs is not easy. We have done this in India quite successfully, but need some viable strategies for handholding and finance for such investments abroad.

Recognising Myanmar’s basic strength as an agricultural country, the top leadership of the NLD has a vision of developing Myanmar as a 21st century organic agricultural power. The Party is being criticised for not coming out with a clear economic policy as yet, but given their base among the people and public interests that are at variance from international development orthodoxy, they are thinking hard about these things.

With our investment in the ACARE and Rice Biopark, and a healthy line of credit that can be used for agriculture, we have the opportunity of taking the lead and partnering Myanmar in this effort. By doing so, we would be aligning our investment with Myanmar’s priorities as indeed, as a good neighbour, we should.

This is also very much in our interest. As the largest agricultural surplus country in our vicinity already bound to India through its trade in pulses, Myanmar is already important for us for our food security. This could be developed and formalised into a strategic food security relationship for both countries.

For some time now, we have been trying to promote the idea of a stable arrangement for procurement and supply of beans and pulses with Myanmar that could serve the interest of Myanmar farmers for an assured market and predictable, remunerative prices as well as availability of pulses and price stability in India. Recently, Minister of State for Commerce & Industry Nirmala Sitharaman has had intensive discussions with the Myanmar Minister of Commerce on the subject. So far, it has not yet fructified not because Myanmar is not willing to consider it, but because it does not have a procurement and canalising agency. Discussions are on.

An agreement on beans and pulses can be the building block of a much larger food security relationship. These could include increasing production through extension of Indian agricultural scientific, technical (including adaptation measures to climate change), market access services, procurement and import of not only beans and pulses, but also rice and edible oilseeds (which too Myanmar produces for export and which we import on a large scale), and mutual food assistance in case of floods, cyclones and other natural disasters which typically affect both of us. Such an agreement would be novel and worthy of signature at the level of Prime Minister and the top leadership of Myanmar.

I would like to particularly mention the strategic significance of rice trade with Myanmar. Presently, we do not import rice from Myanmar. Proposals for import of small quantities of rice from Myanmar for political and strategic reasons have been made by our Ambassadors in Myanmar from time to time, but run up against resistance from our public food distribution agencies on economic and other grounds. It was made once again two years back to supply rice to Manipur and Mizoram while the Lumgding-Silchar railway line was being upgraded to broad gauge. It could not fructify.

Currently, Myanmar supplies nearly 1 MT of rice to China (900,000 in 2014-15, and expected to increase). But the trade which is crucial for Myanmar farmers and traders, is subject to quality and arbitrary barriers and arm-twisting by authorities and importers on the China side. Even modest, 10,000-20,000 tonnes of rice imports for the North East (which is close to Shwebo, one of finest rice growing areas of Myanmar) where Myanmar rice varieties are appreciated, would be a great political gesture to Myanmar farmers, establish our image as a good and friendly neighbour, and promote the kind of North East-Myanmar trade ties that would benefit both sides, without making much of a difference to us.

Of course, agriculture and related industries are not the only areas of investment interest to Myanmar and foreign investors. Recently, in the third week of May (2016), the Embassy of India hosted a major business conclave at CIM’s initiative on the theme of ‘How Indian Business can contribute to Myanmar’s development’ that was attended by three key economic ministers of trade, construction and industry and one Chief Minister besides leading businesses from India and Myanmar.

The event was an eye-opener for our industry and highly welcomed by the Myanmar as a signal that India was serious about Myanmar. It was structured around agriculture, livestock and fisheries; light industry; training, education, health and IT; connectivity & tourism; energy and power; investment hubs and corridors; and rounding it all up, financing investments. I would particularly like to highlight garment manufacturing and consumer goods, air connectivity, capacity-building, health and IT, tourism, and renewable energy as areas for trade and investment that would bring us particularly good dividends in terms of business, branding, and image of India.

Having addressed the question of why and what areas, sectors and level to invest in, I will next turn to where to invest. This too is of strategic significance as investing in Myanmar can enable us to expand our economic footprint across the Greater Mekong Sub-region all the way to Vietnam and to the South China Sea.

If we look at a connectivity map of Myanmar and the GMS or the ASEAN Master Plan on Connectivity you will see the whole region seeking to be interconnected by a network of north-south and east-west road, rail, maritime and riverine routes. As I have said earlier, India itself is making huge investments in surface connectivity from Sittwe via Ponnagyun industrial zone, Paletwa and Myeikwa to Mizoram through the Kaladaan waterway and valley; and about 200 miles from Moreh-Tamu-Kalay-Kaleywa to Yargyi along the trilateral highway to Thailand via Monywa, Mandalay, Meiktila, Bago, Hpa-an, Kawkareik and Myawaddy.

Each of these places along these routes can be investment centres depending on their local strengths. Sittwe port can and should also be connected to the beans and pulse growing hinterland of Magwey through (a place called) Ann, and southwards to the Ayeyawady delta.  Sittwe is the obvious base for trade and investment in Myanmar and Rakhine state from Kolkata (as it used to be under the British).

The diagonal, north-west-south-east Trilateral Highway from Moreh to Myawaddy also intersects with the highway from Mandalay to Ruili in China (AH 14), and the northern East-West highway (AH 2) from Meiktila to Laos and northern Thailand through Shan state. While there is quite a lot of excitement about the Trilateral Highway (and the central and coastal east-west highways though Thailand and Cambodia), we should look at the potential of this route as a trade route and investment corridor leading towards the northern GMS, to Laos and onward to Vietnam via Dien Bien Phu to Hanoi.

This is unexplored territory in general especially from Laos to Vietnam, but it goes through incredibly rich agricultural lands in Shan territory, and though conflict affected to the north and south, it has tremendous potential for investment in the  agriculture sector, and another strategic link to Vietnam.

The second set of zones to invest in are the three Special Economic Zones that are in various stages of development at Thilawa near Yangon, Dawei on the eastern shore of the Andaman Sea near Thailand, and Kyaukphyu, on the Bay on Bengal coast, just south of Sittwe, and some 25 plus industrial zones coming up in various parts of the country along major trunk routes.

There is some uncertainty about the status of some of these SEZ’s and industrial zones under the NLD, but if given the green light, each of these SEZ’s and industrial zones offer specific advantages.

Thilawa, being built with Japanese partnership, is the most advanced and the best connected for international trade, but until May, not a single Indian investor had invested in the zone.

The SEZ for Kyaukphyu and deep sea port, hurriedly awarded by the outgoing government in January to a Chinese-led consortium headed by CITIC, is ideally suited for us as an investment destination in the Bay of Bengal for Indian and international markets. It can be developed for fisheries, agriculture and food processing, other light industries, and downstream oil and gas industries from the nearby oil & gas blocks.

Though at an early stage, Kyaukphyu is of strategic significance for us as it is part of China’s OBOR, and with oil and gas pipeline terminals, an SEZ, a deep sea port, and ambitions to connect it to Yunnan province, there is little doubt that the Chinese will need to securitize the investment within Myanmar and in the Bay of Bengal.

There is, at this stage, very little knowledge, let alone understanding and appreciation of the Chinese plans and implications of this project in strategic or commercial quarters for us. There is some opposition to the project in Kyaukphyu and Rakhine state in general on Rakhine nationalist grounds as well as environmental and anti-Chinese feelings, and we have been approached by several Myanmar businessmen, even those working closely with the Chinese, for India to be part of the SEZ, and not to let the Chinese monopolise the project. The Chinese too realise that India is a natural partner to make this project viable.

We need to take a serious call, taking into account Myanmar’s views on these projects, whether it is in our interest to keep a distance from these plans, or join them if we cannot beat them.

The third planned SEZ in Dawei too has offers strategic economic possibilities for us. Dawei SEZ is a Thai-Myanmar project being promoted by the Thai that is basically conceptualised as an SEZ and transhipment point for shipping from the Gulf and Red Sea, Colombo and the eastern seaboard of India cutting through Kanchanaburi and Thailand to the South China Sea and East Asia, bypassing Singapore. It has still not achieved financial closure and is undergoing restructuring with the Myanmar and Thailand trying to rope in Japan. For some odd reason, nobody has thought of courting us for this project.

Dawei stands due west of Chennai, location of a number of Japanese and Korean investments in the auto, electronics and other sectors and close to one of the garment and hosiery manufacturing centres of India. Potentially, it could serve as potential processing point for value chains between India and East Asia, and local products, once again typically marine and agricultural products, light and medium industries, and downstream hydrocarbon industries drawing from the offshore Yetagun and Moattama oil fields. Dawei could also be a serious launching pad for Indian investments eastwards to the Pacific.

In addition to these SEZ’s there are several industrial zones scattered all over Myanmar of varying degrees of readiness, interest and viability. For geographical, connectivity and resource reasons,  besides those along our connectivity projects that I have already referred to, we should look at the agriculturally (especially rice) rich Shwebo in Sagaing Region adjacent to Manipur, Pathein in the Ayeyawady delta in the deep south west of Myanmar, Nyaungshwe near Inle lake and/or Namshan on the Meiktila-Kyaingtong highway, Mowgaung-Tanai in Kachin state, and in a number of more central areas like Pyay and Bago, north and east of Yangon respectively which are well connected.

Finally, how should one structure Indian investments in Myanmar especially in the SME sector? I do not have the economic experience to provide answers, but as Ambassador, I was often confronted with Indian businessmen keen to invest in the power or capacity-building sectors, and others willing to consider investing in Myanmar. My suggestion is that Chambers of Industry, big ticket consultants or interested large entrepreneurs should take the lead in forming a consortium of companies willing to invest along with a power provider and a training partner to propose consolidated, Indian industrial zones in areas of interest, with power and training solutions and surplus capacity open to all. This would also give our investors the necessary bargaining power to get a good deal.

Second, we really need to find a way to hand hold and finance small investments broadly in the rural sector, perhaps through some kind of partnership between institutions like the NSIDC, NABARD and others.

Third, we need to give a push and support for capable dairy and agriculture cooperatives to replicate the Gujarat dairy model in Myanmar where the east Indian origin populations in Bago Region could easily provide an opportunity for a pilot project for the rest of Myanmar.

Fourth, in certain poorly endowed areas like Chin state, there is merit in encouraging our border states and the kindred Mizo-Kuki-Chin of Mizoram and Manipur to extend successful all purpose cooperatives and some of their development programmes (like the NELP in Mizoram) across the border.

Fifth, we need to see how we can encourage and mobilise successful examples of extension services, hiring (rather than ownership) of farm machinery which few can afford, and market information, storage and warehousing and access for agricultural products to markets through not-for-profit NGO or commercial rather than government channels to help the Myanmar farmer and rural sector.

We certainly need to go beyond the government to involve a range of potential partners from NGOs to private enterprise and border state governments in our relations with Myanmar.

India would do well to look beyond the political and other areas of its relationship with Myanmar and focus on one area that is still, I think, under valued rather than spread myself thin. In any case, the way I see it, the economic case that I have made, is basically political not perhaps in the sense of day to day, or party politics, but politics in the larger sense.

(The author is a former IFS official and a former Ambassador to Myanmar and Afghanistan. The article is the gist of the key-note address delivered on 5th July, 2016 at the Bilateral Conference on “India-Myanmar – Frontiers of New Relationship” hosted by India Foundation at New Delhi.)

Explide
Drag