Assam – A Microcosm of India

~ By Shubhrastha

Gateway to the seven sisters of India and an integral part of the northeast imagination of India, Assam also shares international boundaries with Bangladesh and Bhutan. Connected with the Indian mainland through a chicken-neck corridor, immediately linked with West Bengal, Assam is home to more than 50 tribes and communities. Distinguished from each other by conspicuously stark cultures, traditions, sartorial choices, cuisines, languages, consciousness and, therefore, identities, Assam is marked by cultural, national, poetic and political complexities of a unique order; which is why many scholars have described the state as the microcosm of India.

Geopolitically and culturally, Assam has to be studied as three distinct and separate, yet connected entities. The Upper Assam and Lower Assam in the Brahamputra valley and the Barak valley are identified with unique set of issues commensurate with distinctive geographical components and demographic concerns. The intricate relationships between the multiethnic, polyglottic, and different socio-cultural commitments of the tribes like the Mishing, the Bodos, the Deoris, the Rabhas, the Tiwas, the Ahoms, the Khamtis, the Sonowal Kacharis, the Phakials, the Dimasa Kacharis, the Karbis, the Koch Rajbangshis, the Barmans, the Hmars, the Kukis, the Rengma Nagas, the Zeme Nagas, the Hajongs, the Garos, the Khasis, the Jaintias, the Mechs, the Motoks and the Morans among the many other demographic groups like the Bengalis, the Marwaris, the tea plantation laborers, indigenous Muslims, Christians etc. have given a complex comity to the idea of identity for and in Assam.

On the one hand, there is a constant need to engage with the question ‘who is an Axomiya (Assamese)’ – punctuated by which the state has seen various articulations reverberating throughout the length and breadth of Assam. One the other hand, there is a thread of a quite strong regional, or in the words of scholars, ‘subnational’, sentiment running deep into the veins and sinews of Assam. Additionally, as if to legitimize and contain what Kramer and Nicolescu call the ‘historical-contemporary’ and ‘conflictive-cooperative’ relations between communities in Assam, the Indian constitution stands out as a distinct consciousness of the political reality in Assam. It is necessary, therefore, that in order to contextualize Assam as a subtext of the Indian national consciousness, one negotiates with the twin realities of conflict and identity in the state.

Conflict and Identity in Assam

The Battle of Saraighat in 1671 and the Battle of Itakhuli in 1682 alongside the other battles beginning 1615, fought between the Mughals and the Ahoms were decisive battles that are etched in the historical and national consciousness of Assam. The historical legend of Lachit Borphukan, for instance, defines the heritage of Assamese pride and identity. The legend carries on to this day and is used in explaining many of the contemporary political idioms and historical phenomena against the backdrop of indigenous pride overcoming external aggression.

The Peace Treaty of Yandaboo signed between the British General Sir Archibald Campbell and the Governor of Legaing from the Burmese side, Maha Min Hla Kyaw Htin, in 1826, ended the First Anglo-Burmese War – the most expensive war in the British Indian history and initiated the British rule in Assam. Thereby, not even two years passed, when in 1828, the first revolt against this external aggression by the British was initiated by the duo Dhananjay Borgohain and Gunadhar Konwar. Thereafter, many local leaders like Maniram Dewan, Piyoli Baruah, Anandaram Dhekial Phukan, Hem Chandra Baruah, Gunabhiram Baruah, Kanak Lata Baruah, Kushal Konwar, Kamala Miri, Bhogeshwari Phukanani among many others carried on their constant struggle for freedom, contributing a significant sacrifice in the national movement, till India achieved independence in 1947. The pride and glory of Assam’s contribution in building the Indian nation state carried on the rich legacy of the state.

In contrast, during the Sino-India war, in 1962, following the fall of Bomdila, Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India, as if in a gesture of fatigue and helplessness, announced, “my heart goes out to the people of Assam.” The hurt and pain it caused the people of Assam pulsates even to this day and festers the wound the episode inflicted upon the Assamese pride.

As if in continuation of the solidarity with the people of Assam against the feeling of dejection, hurt and pain by this dereliction and negligence in preserving and protecting what is the homeland of many an Assamese population, the Assam Agitation between 1979 and 1985, till this date, stands as a representation of the reason behind the inimical discontent Assam feels with respect to the rest of the country.

United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) in its ideological justification, interprets the Treaty of Yandabo as an understanding between the British India and Burma that dissolved the independence of Assam. The militant and radical stream of this consciousness integral to the ULFA seeks to restore that ‘lost independence.’

If one were to put these historical frames as a backdrop for the larger picture Assam paints for the rest of the world, one might find the deconstruction of the identity of Assam interesting. Drawing from what Jacques Lacan articulates in his psychoanalytic reference to a ‘mirror stage’, borrowing heavily from Sigmund Freud, one may infer that the identity of the Assamese self has been built as a result of the conflict between its visual appearance, as it came down to the imagination via mythical legends and articulations, and one’s emotional experience, as the temporal realities and episodes of history unfolded. This conflictual relationship of the dual relationship with the ‘imagined community’, in the words of Benedict Anderson, and the circumstantial realization is what punctuates Assam’s selfhood. As if to summarize the situation of identity with respect to Assam, one can use the words of Richard D Parker who says, “The need to assert an identity is mediated by a history of conflict and aspersion.”

Ethnic Aspirations and National Politics

Pierre Bourdieu defines reality as the site where a permanent struggle to define reality takes place. He says that struggles for nationhood are ‘struggles over classification’ and articulates that political realpolitik with long term articulation of politics, therefore, must include in its notion “the struggle over representations.” This theoretical premise might help to observe Assam’s aspirational subnational consciousness in the overall context of Indian nationalism.

Benedict Anderson argues that nation states have been insufficiently imagined giving most nations a restive situation. The colonists – British, Portuguese, French – all left their colonies at the mercy of the still forming definition of nation state and nationalism. More than 545 smaller entities with unique imaginations, aspirations and goals were tactfully, politically, negotiably and/or through direct action stitched together to build a politically unified nation as it stands today.

In his book ‘India Against Itself – Assam and the Politics of Nationality’, Sanjib Baruah says, “…subnational movements, and the exacerbation of these conflicts has often been the result of political mismanagement by those acting with the authority of the state.”

In the process of consolidating the national identity and form, the many subnational questions were either buried or ignored for the time being. The many subnational undercurrents fueled by subliminal faiths, questions, concerns, aspirations, unease, temporary arrangements and suppressed articulations merely muted themselves till the time the discontent was strategically prudent and communicatively consistent. The articulations of the ULFA and the NDBF are cases in point.

However, it is prudent to see that all the regional parties or factions or groups or political constitutions in Assam, today, are but a more realistic portrayal of what the national super text provides to its subnations. In that respect, whatever the ‘Imagined Community’ of these countercurrents, the subnational political mobilization in Assam is inspired, animated and mediated by the Indian constitution, laws, public philosophy and political processes. The fact also is that the pattern of politicization and mobilization that meets some of the criteria of nationalism is not committed to the idea of a separate statehood. In fact, these subnationalisms stand in a dialogical relationship with pan-Indian politics.

The state elections in Assam this time, in April 2016, saw more than 82 per cent turn out of voters. In fact, over the last few decades, the voter turn out in Assam has been, by far, the best record in the country. If one were to seriously consider the subnational narratives of self determination, as articulated by the so called ethnic wings and factions, the consensus seem to emerge on identifying the nation over any other concern.

It is interesting to read Ernest Gellner here who opines that nationalism and subnationalisms are “the crystallization of new units…admittedly using as their raw material the cultural, historical, and other inheritances from the pre-nationalist past.” Almost similar is Antonio Gramsci’s articulation that the politics of subnationalism is absorbed in the theoretical space of civil rather than political society.

Therefore, one can believe in Robert Fossaert, when he says that civil society is not a set of institutions but as a “society in its relation with the state…in so far as it is in confrontation with the State”, a society which resists and counteracts the “simultaneous totalization unleashed by the State”, to the extent where we agree to simultaneously understand that the theoretical comprehension and exegesis of these subnational texts are dependent on and dedicated to the overarching concept of a national super text.

Margins to Mainstreaming Assam

The current government in India draws from the ideological premise of ‘India First’ and symbolically recognizes the Indian Constitution as the ‘religious text of the nation’. Assam is the prime focus area within the government’s stated and emphasized ‘Act East Policy’ because of its geo-political significance and strategic location. However, it is also true that going by the statistical and developmental analyses of the state, the past few decades have not been quite assuring.

Out of the 69 years post independence, Congress ruled Assam for more than 50 years. For the first time, Congress was ousted from Dispur when the AGP formed the government in 1985. Subsequently, AGP also ruled the state for another term from 1996 to 2001. Therefore, from 1980s onwards, politics in Assam revolved primarily around these two parties. The Communists and the vestiges of the Janata Party remained only marginal players in Assamese politics.

For the first time in 1991, BJP rose in Assam with a slim representation of 10 seats mostly in the Barak Valley – the victory attributed to ‘Ram Mandir wave’ by some political analysts. In 2001 and 2006, the BJP spread gradually in Upper Assam and the north bank of the Brahmaputra. In 2011, BJP was ousted from the Barak Valley but spread to lower and central Assam. In 2014, seven out of the 14 Loksabha seats were picked up the BJP, riding on the Modi wave.

It is interesting to observe this trajectory because in the political statements that the people of Assam have been pronouncing since 1991, the Axomiya sentiment in Assam, though, reverberates on the surface but the larger pan-India issues like poverty, unemployment and development have gradually gained primacy. It is within this super text that Assam politics has redefined and reconstructed itself.

The gradual but definite move from regional issues to national aspirations is a movement towards relying on a larger developmental agenda and coopting governance concerns for better livelihoods. With this movement of an Axamiya articulation of mere cultural mores to a more universal negotiation with common problems like poverty, malnutrition, equality, uneven development, Assam has made a definite stride towards achieving the national targets.

According to Sanjib Baruah, “Today we need a different kind of morality to accommodate a historical understanding of the nation state system and the logic of new nationalisms in some areas of the world and of subnational politics in many more or less stable ‘nation states’.” The politics of Assam, like most other politics of identity, lie in the real or imagined homelands of the articulators.

Pan-Indian political community – an Indic community – is in fact a poetic construction of a homeland – a sole repository of collective memories and dreams of all Indians. Primal, homelike, or a sacred space that transforms people into a collective with shared origins and kinship, this Indic articulation of a united, organic whole is what perhaps Hegel theorized on. Through the lens of Hegel’s idea of ‘totality’, which preserves within it each of the various stages and ideas that it has overcome or subsumed, one can look at the Indic nation state as a more organic phenomenon of coopting subnational divisions into the national Indic consciousness.

Therefore, what is unique is that while thesubnational movement in Assam, like the rest of India, was inspired by the Western concept of nationalism, it was in practice, efforts to construct a state that was, by and large, the opposite of “ethnically and linguistically homogenous entities” – cohering and making sense of the larger ideas of development, health, education among many others.

The leitmotif of identity politics has always been empowerment. In a post liberalized, postmodern Indian consciousness, Assam, like many other Indian states, is grappling with issues of conflict. Hinging on the super text of an ideology that is committed to the sole concerns of swift and all round development, the empowered national rhetoric of unity in diversity is very succinctly reflected in Assam at the cultural cusp of Shankar-Azan’s teachings.

The author is a Socio-Political consultant and freelance writer.

(This article appeared in India Foundation Journal, January-April 2016 issue.)

Homeland Security 2016 – Smart Border Management

India has 15,106.7 km of land border and a coastline of 7,516.6 km including island territories. Securing the country’s borders against interests hostile to the country and putting in place the systems that are able to interdict such elements while facilitating legitimate trade and commerce are among the principal objectives of border management in India.

The proper management of borders, which is vital to the national security, presents many challenges and includes coordination and concerted action by the administrative, diplomatic, security, intelligence, legal, regulatory and economic agencies of the country to secure the frontiers and serve its best interest.

Ministry of Home Affairs and various Indian Border Guarding agencies have been exploring the deployment of technologies/solutions for improved border surveillance with a view to reduce/eliminate incidents of infiltration, smuggling or other illegal cross border activities in various terrain along Indo-Bangladesh Border (IBB), and Indo- Pakistan Border (IPB), especially in challenging areas where fencing could not be installed due to difficult terrain.

Force modernisation and meeting equipment needs are immediate priorities in border management of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) responsible for guarding international borders.

India Foundation in collaboration with FICCI is organizing the eighth edition of the Conference on Homeland Security with the theme of Smart Border Management. The Conference will will take place on September 6-7, 2016 at FICCI, New Delhi and will witness participation from senior officials from Government of India, Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and various State Police Forces (SPFs).

The two day conference proposes to bring together experts from Government, Central Armed Police Forces, Indian Navy, Coast Guard, State (Marine) Police and Industry to discuss and debate issues for smart and effective border management in India.

The conference will focus on:
Challenges, threats and peculiarities of borders
Emerging technologies for perimeter security
Coastal & maritime security
Modernisation of border management
Role of UAVs and drones
Unconventional threats to border security
Infrastructure for border communities
Significance & aspirations of public participation in border security
Economic benefits from border management

Whom Do You Expect To Meet
Ministry of Home Affairs (AR, BSF, ITBP, SSB)
Ministry of Defence (Indian Navy, Indian Cost Guard)
Ministry of External Affairs
State Marine Police
Global & Domestic Industry players
Border Communities
Other Stakeholders

To download the E-Flier, please click here:

Bilateral Interaction on “Myanmar-India: Frontiers of New Relationship”

India-Myanmar-July-20161

India Foundation is hosting a 10 member delegation from Myanmar Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Myanmar for a Bilateral Interaction on “Myanmar-India: Frontiers of New Relationship”. The interaction will be held on 05-06th July, 2016 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. 

The conference will aim to take forward the discussions that took place during our comprehensive dialogue in Yangon in November 2014 on “India Myanmar: Together the Way Ahead”. The aim is to build a robust relationship between the two countries, based on our common heritage and interests.

For further information, please mail us at mail@indiafoundation.in.

India Economic Convention 2016

India Foundation, along with FICCI, USIBC and the Govt of Jammu & Kashmir, would be organizing the 3rd India Economic Convention on 23rd-24th September at Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir. This Convention is an annual event with an aim to bring together leaders from the government, business, think-tanks, academia and research organizations as well as global experts to discuss some of the pertinent economic issues, challenges and opportunities for India. This premier annual event provides an ideal platform for exploring the key policy challenges and gathering innovative ideas and suggestions to drive growth, create livelihood opportunities and ensure sustainable development of the country.

The themes of this year’s convention is “Ideas for India of Tomorrow”. This convention follows earlier ones in 2014 and 2015 held on the themes “A New Growth Paradigm for India” and “Architecture for Growth” respectively.

To download the Brochure, click here: Brochure IEC

National Seminar on “Integral Humanism in Indian Thought”

India Foundation organized a two day National Seminar on Integral Humanism in Indian Thought at Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi on 19-20 September, 2016 which saw attendance from noted academics, activists and students. The event started with floral tributes to Deendayal Upadhayay Ji on the occasion of his centenary birth celebration. Deendayal Ji was born on 25 September, 2016 at a small village in Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh in North India. Deendayal Ji 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 a galaxy of key thinkers of present times. Shri Mukul Kanitkar spoke of how Deendayal Ji’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 Ji’s Integral Humanism from M.N. Roy’s conception of Radical Humanism in as much as the latter is bereft of any shade of spiritualism which cannot be divorced from humanism in the long run. Highlighting the role of Integral Humanism in shaping India’s Education Policy for 21st century he observed that Deendayal Ji’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 is not only relevant during the days of struggle but also in times when the people alighted by the thought have assumed power to change India for better.

Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma started his address by equating the Integral Humanism with the entirety of Indian political thought staring with the Vedas to our contemporary times. Vedic invocations of ‘ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti’ meaning ‘truth is one, sages call it by various names’ and ‘matra bhumi putro aham 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 Ji’s Integral Humanism. Also that this branch of sociological research eschews that false binaries of good and bad only, 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 path of consensus by way of debate and discussion. Indian society 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 today. It is not bound by the chains of time and age. Hence it isn’t a mere ideology represented by an ‘ism’ like many contemporary thoughts. Deendayal Ji was both a thinker and a practitioner. His thought has both an ideological as well as practical panache. On the front of ideology he was open to new ideas and his practical side is best reflected in his vision that all the material creation is to be understood as human achievement. This, however, does not mean that man is the measure of everything as in the western thought. Indian mind comprehends the human being as ‘purusha’ who is all encompassing. It is man who makes society and that becomes a nation. It is these nations that finally constitute the world. Purusha is the best embodiment of Indian thought that identifies unity in diversity and diversity in unity. This integrity of human existence is what constitutes the essence of Integral Humanism of Deendayal Ji. Further all struggle, violence, hatred and jealousy is artificial and has no place in Indian thought. It is these ideas of Deendayal Ji that Modi government is implementing by way of programmes like Jan Dhan Yojna, Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, Beti Bachao Beti Padhao Yojna, Krishi Sinchai Yojna, Kaushal Vikas Yojna, Mudra Yojna, etc.

Chair calls for 2 minute silence at the start of Technical Sessions to pay tribute to the martyrs of Uri Attack dated 18 September, 2016. Prof. S.P. Mani gave his address a fitting start by recalling the Vedic dictums of ‘sarve bhuvantu sukhina, sarve santu niramaya’ and ‘ten takten bhunjitah’ as the core or foundational principles of Integral Humanism expounded by Deendayal Ji. He observed that balance is the key to success, whether in material pursuits or in spiritual world. He outlined that Deendayal Ji used sangam sanskriti to give India her swaroop. The essential features of India’s swaroop include:

  1. Acceptance
  2. Validation
  3. Celebration
  4. Gender Justice, and
  5. Sustainable Development

In his remarks Prof. K.B. Pandya raised the question as to what is India’s ‘chiti’? He urged that t6he answer to this question is to be located in India’s own store house of wisdom- Ramayan and Mahabharata. In Ramayana when Shri Rama accepts his mother Queen Kaikeya’s order to defines India and defies the limited logic of Western world. He recalls that when Deendayal ji was asked about the poor performance of his party in Lok Sabha elections in 1962 he simply said ‘all those who have won, are mine and I am their own’.

Dr. Ashok Modak in his enlightening remarks took up the challenging task of identifying key features of Deendayal Ji’s conception of Integral Humanism. Service to motherland is one of these key themes wherein we find that the patriotic urges of Indian people have played a significant role in saving India at many occasions. Similarly optimism of Indian mind is another key feature of our thought in distinction to the primacy of greed or other negative ideas in the West. Also spirituality, integrity, openness to change and all-encompassing holistic approach are key themes of Integral Humanism.

Prof. K.C. Pandey spoke on ‘Integral Humanism and Ancient Indian Thought’ and his address was focused on how consciousness is the foundation of all that exists. He spoke that self-realization involves ethical and mystical processes and the meeting of consciousness at individual and universal levels. Mr. Govardhan Bhatt spoke of the need of the need of synergy between science and spirituality. He also remarked that Deendayal Ji is a true follower of the advaita tradition of Shri Adi Shankaracharya. Mr. Krishore Dere spoke of Deendayal Ji’s insistence on self-reliance in economy and predominance of agriculture as the hallmarks of Indian independence and that he was dissatisfied with first 17 years of India’s progress soon after British Raj. Ms. Shikha Sharma observed that a solid foundation of society can be built on the foundations of advaita vedanata. Mr. Shubham Verma spoke of 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, and not otherwise.

Mr. 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 where the hope is reflected in the ideas of Deendayal Ji and despair is reflected in illusive dream of Nehruvian consensus. The most prominent challenge to Indianisation of education today is the artificial distinction between science and spirituality whereby the two are made to look like two water-tight compartments with nothing common in between. Shri Ashok Pandurang spoke of 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 this even Kyoto Protocol fails to acknowledge that trees have spiritual value too and focusses excessively on their economic value only. Shri Rambahadur Rai observed that ideas of Deendayal Ji are in line with the basic texts of Gandhiji’s Hind Swaraj and Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s Geeta Rashaya. In a way Deendayal ji’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.

20 September, 2016

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 the effect that social disparities between rich and poor and those between castes and communities are widening day by day and it is this malady that Deendayal Ji’s vision of Integral Humanism seeks to redress by ensuring the 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, like the works anti-caste saints of India. 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 as an alternative to contemporary discourse. Ms. Chandani Sengupta spoke on ‘Intergral Humanism and Swami Vivekananda’ highlighted that Swami Vivekananda was always clear that the only true humanism is the one that involves dignity for all and fraternity of all, thereby making it incumbent on our rich to care for the poor and under-privileged. She said that both Swami Ji and Deendayal Ji thought of service to mankind as the best way of man-making. Dr. Apoorv Mishra spoke on a comparative study of Danndayal Ji’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. Also both of them emphasize on the role of religion in shaping political ideas and in building a society rooted in its culture. But where they disagree is the fact that Integral Christian Humanism assumes its thesis to be self-evident as is God in Christian theology while Deendayal Ji follows the Vedantic model of shastrartha in form of debate and discussion.

Dr. Sethuraman Rammohan spoke on ‘Integral Humanism in the Light of Quantum Physics’ in the light of Vedic dictum ‘yad pinde 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 Ji’s ideas in building a happy and prosperous nation. Mr. Chintamani Malyiya identified deendayal Ji’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 Ji’s ideas to Indian political thought. He highlighted that soon after independence India embarked upon a mission to build ourselves 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. Deendayal Ji 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 fulfil his desires. As against this Integral Humanism as propounded by Deendayal Ji conceives a society that is free from all discrimination, disease and want.

Shri Krishna Gopal Ji spoke on the need of consensus building and balanced life as integral traits of Integral Humanism of Deendayal Ji. 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 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.

Two day National Seminar thus came to satisfactory conclusion by generating greater academic awareness about his thoughts. But true to Deendayal Ji’s life and his message the attending audience resolved to continue with shastrartha on how to implement his vision in India today.

img_0056 img_0059 img_0209 img_0219 img_0237 img_0258 img_0291 img_0310 img_0345 img_0358 img_0397 img_0416 img_0422 img_0427 img_0437

National Seminar on Hindu Jurisprudence: Texts and Its Evolving Concepts

It is well-known that the Indian judicial system and law has borrowed many of its ideas from the ancient Hindu laws. When an approach is made to understand Hindu laws, like other religious laws, the sources of these laws are many and diverse. One has to look at different texts such as the Gita, Vedas, Manu and instances from other holy books and mythology to understand the laws in its totality. However, not all of the laws can be said to be in accord with each other. Thus, a unique feature of the Hindu law has been its codification where the laws have evolved to make space for a combination of all the ancient texts. This seminar centered on the philosophy of the Hindu Law, its evolution, epistemology, the modern transformation and so on.

A-125-300x200A-33-300x200

India Foundation, in collaboration with Indian Council for Philosophical research (ICPR), organized a 3-day national seminar on Hindu Jurisprudence: Texts and its evolving concepts, held at the Indian International Centre- Annexe, New Delhi from May 16-18, 2016. About 30 speakers presented their papers at the conference on the theme, and the audience entailed of scholars, researchers, lawyers and students. Justice L Narasimha Reddy, retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court, delivered the inaugural address where he emphasiszed that the entire edifice of Hindu Law rested on the foundation of Dharma. The idea of Dharma was a larger, more wholesome concept of which law was just a small part. He focused on the relevance of some precepts of ancient Hindu law for modern times and urged researchers to undertake a more thorough study of the Dharmashastras to improve the current legal system.

The seminar contained a total of eight technical sessions with paper presentations focusing primarily on Hindu law and its evolution, the pros and the cons, and its application in modern Indian law.

The first of these eight sessions traced the historical evolution of the Hindu laws and code bill. The session emphasized also briefly on the history of law in India through a legal, social and historical perspective. The role of Hindu laws as mentioned in the ancient Hindu texts such as the Vedas and the Manu in shaping of the modern law in India was evaluated.

The second technical session focused on the concepts of Marriage, divorce and Widow Remarriage as in the ancient Hindu laws. The ancient Hindu laws are said to have detailed codes and decrees on the relationship between a man and a woman, marital or otherwise. This session comprised of a range of issues related to marriage, including women’s rights before and after marriage, divorce and death of the husband. The discourse around the process of marriage and eligibility, dowry, and touched briefly upon alimonies, maintenance and compensation was discussed, including the innate sexism in some of the laws as well the gender equality in some others as formulated in the Vedas and the Manu.

A (129)A (174)A (210)IMG_0026

The third session held on day 2 was highly interrelated to the previous session on Hindu marriages. This session had more speakers present in depth analysis of the maintenance and succession policies under the Hindu law. The rights of the woman after being divorced or widowed as well as the rights of the children as successors were highlighted. Progressive laws such as alimony being provided by wives to unable husbands and loans being waived off to children of deceased indebted fathers were particularly emphasized.

The subject of the fourth session was Adoption and Inheritance. The discourse on adoption has been a product of various changes and amendments both in ancient Hindu law and modern Indian law. From the concept of Niyog to the concept of adoption, from sole rights of the father over the adopted child to equal rights being granted to the mother, from preference of a male heir to adoption of female children, the adoption law has come a long way. Hindu law is the only law that grants adoption as a personal right, albeit not as a fundamental right. Moreover an adopted child is also given equal rights of inheritance under law.

The fifth technical session entailed a comparative study of Dharma and Artha tradition. The papers in this area mainly dealt with the idea of crime and justice as conceptualized in the ancient texts. A philosophical approach to the theory of law and justice was undertaken. A detailed analysis of different crime in the Vedic times and their respective punishments or dandas, and the apparent casteism in each of these laws was also presented. The idea of Dharma was approached from the predicament of the character of Draupadi from the Hindu mythology, her questions to the sabha on man’s rights on his wife and his dharma being juxtaposed as the dilemmas of modern day law.
The contributions of Maharaja Sayaji Rao Gaekwad through his seven progressive laws such as Widow Remarriage Act, Hindu Guardian Act etc., were also recited. The pros and cons of the constitutional religious freedoms in India and the “doctrine of essentiality” were discussed, generating very interesting conversation among the panel and the audiences.

IMG_0133-300x200IMG_0241-300x200IMG_0307-300x200india-001

Session 6 focused broadly on the sources of Hindu law. An analysis of the epistemological foundation of jurisprudence was attempted. A presentation was undertaken on the patriarchal nature of the Hindu law and its significance in women’s access to property rights. The deleted section of the Hindu Succession Act, for instance, prevented a married daughter from getting parental property. The amendments, however, have ensured equal rights for men and women. There was also another paper that focused on the origin and evolution of Hindu law.

IMG_0681-300x200 IMG_0455-300x200IMG_0665-300x200IMG_0677-300x200The sessions were concluded with a valedictory session, starting with Shri Ram Madhav (Director, India Foundation) delivering concluding remarks where he emphasized on a need for development of Hindu Law through research and scholarship. Followed by him, Chairperson of National Commission for Women Ms. Lalitha Kumaramangalam discussed the issues of women with regards to the Hindu Law, and highlighted the importance of changing interpretation of laws. Shri V. K. Dixit presented his scholarly paper which discussed the British influence on Hindu jurisprudence, discussing the various ideologies of several influential thinkers of the pre-independence and independence era. The seminar saw an end with a gratitude speech delivered by a member of India Foundation and a high tea, followed by the distribution of certificates to the presenters and the participants.

 

Felicitation Programme for H.E. Shri Maithripala Sirisena

India Foundation hosted a felicitation programme for H.E. Shri Maithripala Sirisena, the Hon’ble President of Sri Lanka on May 13, 2016 at the Hotel ITC Maurya, New Delhi. The event was graced by the presence of many eminent leaders like Shri Dharmendra Pradhan, Minister of State (IC) for Petroleum and Natural Gas; Shri Jitendra Singh, Minister of State (IC) for Development of North Eastern Region and former MPs and Ambassadors.

The representatives of India Foundation pointed out that under the leadership of President Maithripala Sirisena the longstanding relationship between India and Sri Lanka has entered into a new path while further strengthening it.

IMG_0111-300x200IMG_0206-300x200IMG_0100-300x200IMG_0166-300x200IMG_0070-300x200IMG_0157-300x200

Discussion on “The Future of Asian Renaissance”

IMG_0076IMG_0011India Foundation hosted Mr. George Yeo, Former Foreign Minister of Govt. of Singapore and Chancellor of Nalanda University on 14th April, 2016. Mr. Yeo spoke on“the Future of Asian Renaissance”. Shri MJ Akbar, MP (Rajya Sabha) & Director, India Foundation in his welcome said that he was glad that Mr. Yeo was the Chancellor of Nalanda University and hoped that under his stewardship the institution would grow into one of the great institutions of the world.

Mr. George Yeo thanked India Foundation for inviting him for the interaction. He started by saying that Singapore’s future was between India and China and therefore relations between China and India matter a lot for Singapore. He said that China was expected to be the biggest economy in the world and that the USA or India would hold the second position. He saw a great future for Singapore and ASEAN in the growth of China. He spoke positively about the One Belt One Road (OBOR) policy being pursued by China. He felt that China was the power station of Asia and that if triggered, could give one hell of a shock. He said that the 1962 war between India and China was seen in India as a scar which was yet to heal whereas in China it was almost forgotten. He said that China’s relations with Pakistan were definitely a matter of concern for India. He said that Myanmar would never take a stand against China but would want to serve their own interest through their relations with China in matters of trade, investment etc. He said that all South East Asian countries wanted to develop good relations with the two powerful South Asian Countries – China and India.

Mr. Yeo talked about the importance of ASEAN and how ASEAN could be used to turn the individual weaknesses of the South East Asian countries into their collective strength. He said that friendly relations between India and China would lead to a powerful South East Asia. He said that Buddhism in China was seen as a native religion i.e., a Chinese religion even though the people of china were aware of the fact that Buddhism originated in India. He opined that Buddhism softened Chinese civilization. He reminded the audience that the Indian PM Narendra Modi during his China visit in May 2015, made it a point to visit Wild Goose Pagoda, which was built in recognition of the seventeen year long journey of Xuanzang (Hsuan-tsang in the old spelling) to India in the 7th Century CE and his efforts to popularize Buddhism in China. He was of the opinion that the presence of India’s past in China’s present would hold a lot of significance for both the countries.

IMG_0078-300x200

Mr. Rajiv Sikri, former Ambassador observed that Chinese one belt one road policy is not a benign one. Referring to Chinese extra-territorial claim, he said that if historical reasons could be used as excuses, Turkey should be claiming whole of Arab world. He felt that there would be competition between China and India in ASEAN region. Mr. Manvendra Singh, BJP Leader and Mr. P. Stobdan, former ambassador also spoke. Mr. M.J. Akbar, MP (Rajya Sabha) summed up by saying India and China are mature enough as nations and confident enough to deal with and sort out outstanding issues. Prof. Lokesh Chandra, Chairman, ICCR presented a memento to George Yeo.

What Dalits want

~ By Ram Madhav Varanasi

In 1947, we opted for democracy as our political system post-Independence. “Democracy was something that would give the weak the same chance as the strong,” explained Mahatma Gandhi. Like many other democracies in the world, the three famous principles of the French Revolution — liberty, equality and fraternity — have inspired us too. Liberty we secured through a prolonged political struggle; equality we secured through our Constitution. But what about the third?

Bhimrao Ambedkar, the architect of our Constitution had said that his inspiration for liberty, equality and fraternity was Bhagwan Buddha. “What does fraternity mean?” he asked and went on to explain, “Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians — of Indians being one people. It is the principle that gives unity and solidarity to social life”.

Fraternity can’t be achieved through rules and laws in the Constitution. It requires a persistent education of the people through public and private initiatives. In the last seven decades, have we been able to achieve what Ambedkar had described as fraternity?
Indian society is divided into castes and sub-castes. One single biggest challenge to fraternity today is the hierarchical caste system. Its roots are no doubt very deep. But its distorted and utterly discriminatory manifestation today has no sanction in any Hindu dharmashastras.

“Janmana jatih” — caste by birth — is what we practise as the caste system. Although it had its roots in the varnashrama system of ancient times, the varnashrama system never sanctioned any caste hierarchy; nor did it allow any discrimination. In fact, transmigration was said to be the order of the day in that ancient system.

“Ajyestaaso akanistaasa yete — sam bhraataro vaavrudhuh soubhagaya (No one is superior or inferior; all are brothers; all should strive for the interest of all and progress collectively),” proclaims the Rigveda (Mandala 5, Sukta 60, Mantra 5).

But the present-day caste system defies its own great scriptural wisdom and knowledge. It defies our Constitution in that it stands as a stumbling block in achieving fraternity in society. In a way, it has outlived its utility. The varnashrama system had depended on guna and karma — aptitudes and actions — in positioning a person in a varna. Today’s caste system has no connection with the old system. Hence, it should go lock, stock and barrel.

However, caste has not remained just a system. It got entrenched as an identity. Identities are not easy to erase. There is a need to find innovative ways to tackle this identity question.

Pending that, we shouldn’t lose sight of the immediate. The immediate issue is about discrimination based on caste. Article 17 of our Constitution has effectively and fully sought to abolish untouchability and enforcing any disability on the basis of so-called low and high caste discrimination. Towards that end, we have also promulgated the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, which made the offence of violating Article 17 punishable.

But has it really ended discrimination? Why is a Dalit, however well-educated and well-placed he may be, forced to hide his identity? Why is it that a leader from among Dalits is always seen only as a “Dalit leader”, which is not the case with other leaders? Hierarchical casteism is entrenched in the social psyche, and that is where the battle is.

Today, we are living in an era of caste assertion. In order for social unity and harmony to be well-maintained, we need to keep the discourse on track. In the mid-1990s, a Dalit sub-caste in Andhra Pradesh started using their caste name as a suffix to their names. This, in their view, was a proud assertion of their identity. This act led to serious discussion among the intelligentsia. Many were worried that casteism was staging a comeback. But a simple and profound question asked by a Dalit intellectual put the discussion to rest. In Andhra, people belonging to several non-Dalit castes use their caste name as a suffix. This has been the practice for long. Never did the question of growing casteism arise when Sharma or Shastry or Reddy was used as a suffix. Why this concern when a Dalit does the same?

This calls for a deeper understanding of the discourse within caste groups. For political correctness, one may declare that there is no discrimination in Hinduism and that a Dalit has an equal right to study the Vedas and become on par with a Brahmin. But the question a Dalit will ask is about this notion of “on par”. Why can’t it be that a Dalit reads the Vedas and still remains what he is? Why should he be doing it in order to become “on par” with some other caste?

This is the real discourse that we need to address. We assume that the Dalit discourse is all about more reservations and more jobs. No doubt, reservations are important and so are jobs. But the hunger today is for four things: Samman (respect and dignity), sahbhagita (participation and partnership), samriddhi (progress and prosperity) and, finally, satta (empowerment).

The government can take care of the last two, but the first two are the responsibility of society. Social and religious organisations have to take responsibility for addressing the Dalit hunger for samman and sahbhagita. That is when social equality is achieved.

Ambedkar was right when he warned the nation about it. “On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognising the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value.

How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril.”

Ram Madhav Varanasi is the General Secretary of Bhartiya Janata Party and the Director of India Foundation. The views expressed are his own.

(Disclaimer : This article first appeared in The Indian Express)

Bilateral Discussion with USIBC Delegation

IMG_0176-300x200IMG_0173-300x200India Foundation and the US India Business Council held bilateral discussions on 7th April 2016 at Villa Medici, Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.

Welcoming the USIBC delegation on behalf of India Foundation, Shri Shakti Sinha, Director, said that in the context of an uncertain global economy that shows no signs of recovery, India looks towards foreign investment to help it step up its GDP growth rates to around 10% that it requires to achieve its national development goals. In this context while the present government has made improving the investment climate, or what is popularly known as ‘the ease of doing business’, and taken many steps in that directions, clearly much more has to be done. He requested the USIBC delegation to give specific suggestions on the obstacles or bureaucratic snafus their members faced when doing business in India, so that the quantum of FDI flows for the US increased substantially.

IMG_0087-300x200Ambassador Frank Wisner, who led the USIBC delegation said that the economic success of India is extremely important for USA and that the Indian growth rate which is at present above 7% can go up to 10%. He observed that only opening markets and driving them to competitiveness and bringing in best practices from around the world would ensure accelerated economic growth. Copies of a document titled “India’s Rise: A strategy for trade-led growth” prepared by C. Fred Bergsten of Peterson Institute for International Economics were circulated and Ambassador Frank Wisner remarked that they could only give analysis of how America looks towards India, but India must design its own package of ideas. He expressed a wish that India must join APEC and added that he had indication from Finance Minister of India that govt. of India would look at the prospect positively. He wished that India would grow better, stronger and more influential and be a global player. He said that USIBC values relationship with India Foundation and looks towards intensifying things both organizations can do together. Ambassador Teresita Schafer, Senior Advisor, McLarty Associates said that USA would certainly not throw away all trade barriers and therefore cannot ask India to throw them away. He also said that USA was trying to be friendlier to India’s exports. Mr. Kenneth I. Juster, Partner & Managing Director, Warburg Pincus said that their member companies are making investments in India in a big way. He said that they expect a greater clarity in policy making in India. He said that though FDI limit in insurance sector had increased from 26% to 49% in India, not a single US Company took advantage of it and increased its investment from 26% to 49% percent because they wanted management control of their capital which was not permissible.

IMG_0124-300x200Shri Ram Madhav appreciated USIBC’s desire to host an event in US if the Indian PM decides to visit US in the middle of this year. He said that India’s admission to the membership of an expanded APEC and of NSG, strengthening co-operation on solar energy front and collaboration in defence sector would go a long way in strengthening bilateral relations between India and US. F-16 manufacture in India would be a big thing to happen and Indian government would have the domestic political challenge of answering harsh criticism and clearing misinformation. He said that US must understand and appreciate India’s growing interest and ambition in Indian Ocean. He said while trade and investment is important, it is not exclusive but part of a larger vision. India has strategic goals and larger diplomatic objectives to be achieved and the present government had taken a conscious decision to move ahead on a direction which though difficult, is clearly defined.

Ambassador Ranjan Mathai emphasized the need for driving lot of technology into solar energy field and the role USA can play in this. Ambassador Ashok Kantha suggested that since global trade was flat, trailing growth in global GDP, India may not have the option to look at trade-led growth; instead it would have to rely on investment-led growth. He also suggested that USA should fast-track and facilitate the mechanism of India joining APEC. Dr Shamika Ravi, Senior Fellow, Brookings India, said that India would be able to sustain growth above 7.5% as it is laying foundational structure for growth. She also spoke of the need to rethink about the existing world order of trade and that India was open to lot of experimentation. She added that poverty eradication would have to remain the primary focus of the Indian agenda.

Sri Binod Bawri, Chairman, Bawri Group, Kolkata said that we should also look beyond GDP growth rates; programmes like Swatch Bharat would improve quality of lives of people. He also spoke of the need to focus on brining in best practices in the running of the economy. Ambassador Rajiv Sikri said that it would have to be seen whether the US Congress would approve Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). If the TPP were to come into effect, it would change the rules of the game. He said countries like India had to go through considerable sacrifices in joining WTO and now it seems that WTO+ was likely to come. He said India would have to judge the efficacy of any proposed reform measures in terms of how it would help create jobs in India. He said that India wanted more freedom with regard to movement of labour whereas for the USA, the priority was more freedom with regard to movement of capital. The two countries would have to find a balance between both so that there would be growing convergence of long term goals of both India and USA.

Shri Shaurya Doval said that when India and USA are strategic partners, an element of strategic partnership was to understand at what stage of economic evolution the other partner was. He said India’s growth had to be employment-led; ensuring job creation was a political compulsion as about a million people join workforce every month. He said India needs lot of capital to generate employment and USA needs to deploy its capital. It is a biggest opportunity to marry both. He also requested intellectual inputs from USIBC to enable India to look at and improve its own systems in order to attract capital.

Shri Shakti Sinha, Director, India Foundation who led the delegation from India Foundation presented a memento to Ambassador Frank Wisner and warmly thanked the entire delegation from USIBC for the valuable interaction and looked forward to future collaboration.

China’s Veto: Another Stab in the Back?

~ By Sudarshan Ramabadran

“The way of war is a way of deception. When able, feign inability. When deploying troops, appear not to be. When near, appear far. When far, appear near. Lure with bait; strike with chaos. If the enemy is full, be prepared. If strong, avoid him. If he is angry, disconcert him. If he is weak, stir him with pride. If he is relaxed, harry him. If his men are harmonious, split them. Attack where he is unprepared; appear where you are unexpected.” These words of Chinese master strategist Sun Tzu aptly puts into perspective how China crafts its contemporary foreign policy orientations. Henry Kissinger in his book ‘On China’ has interestingly noted that China’s diplomacy mirrors the game of ‘wei qi’, also known as go, in which players try to encircle one another. This strategy, armed with Sun Tzu’s sutras is what possibly determines China’s pursuit of its grand goal in the 21st century, which is to become the world’s No.1 power.

In 1953, the US had offered India a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. This was flatly refused by then Prime Minister Nehru who instead suggested that the seat be offered to China because he revelled in his ‘Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai’ diplomacy not realizing that one day the Chinese guns would be up in arms against the Indian forces. In Nehru’s words, China deserved it’s so called rightful place in the UN and the Security Council, he said, “Informally, suggestions have been made by the United States that China should be taken into the United Nations but not in the Security Council and that India should take her place in the Security Council. We cannot of course accept this as it means falling out with China and it would be very unfair for a great country like China not to be in the Security Council. We have, therefore, made it clear to those who suggested this that we cannot agree to this suggestion. We have even gone a little further and said that India is not anxious to enter the Security Council at this stage, even though as a great country she ought to be there. The first step to be taken is for China to take her rightful place”, Nehru went on to add, “India because of many factors, is certainly entitled to a permanent seat in the security council. But we are not going in at the cost of China”

Ironically, India today finds itself in an unenviable position of having many of its valid security concerns vetoed by China whose relationship with Pakistan is the cause of much tension in our neighbourhood. The recent blocking of listing the dreaded Pakistani terrorist Masood Azhar, the mastermind behind the Pathankot terror attacks, from the UNSC 1267 resolution is the most recent case. India regards the implementation of this resolution as an important building block of the UN global counter terrorism strategy that aims to protect all member states and their citizens from the activities of terror groups. The Chinese veto comes as no surprise considering the role China has played in shielding Pakistan’s patronage of terrorism. This, despite the fact that since the 1990s China continues to be a victim of terrorism and separatist violence in the Xinjiang region.

However, this is not the first time China has used its veto power against India at the United Nations (UN). In the 45 years that China has been on the UN Security Council, it has used its veto power 10 times. It blocked India’s attempt to list Jamat-ud-Dawa, the terrorist organisation responsible for the 26/11 attacks 3 times. China has also blocked UNSC sanctions on Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) & Al Akhtar Trust (an organisation of the Jaish-e-Mohammed). China also refused to support the listing of Syed Salahuddin in UNSC terror list. It had also earlier blocked a move by India to seek action against Pakistan for the release from jail of LeT commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, the mastermind of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, on the ground that New Delhi has not provided sufficient information. Thus China has violated UNSC resolution 1267 several times in support of Pakistan. China’s claims that ‘Pakistan too is a victim of terrorism’ or gives frivolous reasons such as ‘insufficient information’.

To address this dangerous laxity, Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the recent Nuclear Security Summit in the US highlighted, “Let us drop the notion that terrorism is someone else’s problem and that ‘his’ terrorist is not ‘my’ terrorist”. He further added that, “The reach and supply chains of terrorism are global; but genuine cooperation between nation states is not.”

While on one hand China has continued to block India’s moves to list terrorists and terror organisation under the UNSC, drawing inspiration from ‘Wei Qi’, it has continued to engage with Pakistan on the China Pak Economic Corridor (CPEC) front as part of its ambitious One Belt One Road Initiative. China has refused to cease activities at the proposed CPEC, which runs through Gilgit Baltistan (G-B), which is Indian territory occupied by Pakistan; even according to Pakistan, G-B is disputed territory and not a part of Pakistan. China has already pledged $46 billion dollars for CPEC. Protests from the Indian side were lodged at the highest political level regarding CPEC especially the meeting hosted by Chinese President for the Pakistan Prime Minister.

However China has consistently posited CPEC as a livelihood project but has opposed Indian private companies’ oil exploration at the South China Sea, stating it is a case of sovereignty. Defending its actions, China has maintained that “We know the concern of the Indian side and those projects are not political projects. They are all for livelihood of people…We do not side with the any party on the issue of the territory. We have been advocating that the disputes should be solved through concerned parties through peaceful means. The kind of commercial activities do not affect the position of China on the claimants of the territory.”

General VP Malik, Former Army Chief in one of his columns notes the strategic inroad China aims to achieve through the proposed corridor: “If and when CPEC is completed, it will be a political, economic and strategic game changer in the region. China’s control of Shaqsgam and other valleys of Gilgit-Baltistan will enable this area to be linked with its military and industrial complexes of north-western Tibet. China also obtained a commitment from Pakistan for the security of the project and the workforce involved. The Pakistan army has raised a special security division for this, with headquarters in Diamer district of Gilgit-Baltistan. To ensure security at the Arabian Sea end, China will sell eight submarines to Pakistan, which would double its fleet.”

India – China bilateral relations remains one of the most difficult bilateral relations. One of the affecting factors has been the trust deficit. If China – India have to achieve Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision of INCH towards MILES (India China towards Millennium of Exceptional Synergy) then China must remain sincere and commit to its Premier Le Keqiang’s words, “China is ready to deepen counter-terrorism cooperation with India to better safeguard the development and security interests of our two countries.”

Sudarshan Ramabadran is a Research Associate with India Foundation. The views expressed are his own.

India-Bangladesh Friendship Dialogue – 7th Round

The 7th round of the India-Bangladesh Friendship Dialogue titled, “Bangladesh-India Relations: Ground Rules of a new paradigm” was held on the 4th to 5th March, 2016 in Dhaka, jointly organized by the Bangladesh Foundation and India Foundation, Friends of Bangladesh and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dhaka and witnessed high levels of participation from the political, media, executive and academic circles of both countries.

DSC_0280-300x199DSC_0250-300x199

Day – 1:
The inaugural session began with the welcome remarks by H.E. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Shringla, High Commissioner of India to Bangladesh and Introductory Remarks by Mr. Satyam Roy Chowdhury, Vice President Friends of Bangladesh (India Chapter). The Dialogue was graced by the presence of the Chief Guest, Mr. Abul Hasan Mahmood Ali, M.P, Hon’ ble Foreign Minister of Bangladesh. The Key Note Speeches were delivered by H.E. Mr. Shahriar Alam, Honorable State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bangladesh; Shri Ram Madhav, National General Secretary of BJP and Director, India Foundation.

Mr. Shahriar Alam, Hon’ble State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bangladesh addressed the relationship between Bangladesh-India based on a multitude of commonalities–historical, cultural, linguistic, religious, ethnic and social. He highly appreciated the ratification by India of the long awaited Land Boundary Agreement that has been an epitome of goodwill of the BJP-led government towards Bangladesh. He also highlighted that apart from traditional sectors, new areas of cooperation have also opened up collaboration in nuclear energy, blue economy, maritime affairs, satellite launching just a few to name.

In his Keynote remarks, Shri Ram Madhav, National General Secretary of BJP and Director, India Foundation, mentioned that the relation of India with Bangladesh is not of a big brother but rather as partners; partners in progress, partners in peace, partners in prosperity. He emphasized on both countries’ democratic constitution and praised the Hon’ble PM, Sheikh Hasina for her stand to protect the democratic constitution of Bangladesh. In case of trade issues with India he gave his assurance that no injustice will be done to Bangladesh. He also applauded the Indian high commissioner’s involvement to take the land boundary agreement to a logical conclusion.

In his address, the Chief Guest for the Inaugural Session, Mr. Abul Hasan Mahmud Ali, Hon’ble Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bangladesh spoke about the new prospering dimensions of India-Bangladesh relations. He also mentioned that the foreign policy of both the nations should be the one which promotes secularism; human rights, social justice, and non-violent inter-cultural progress to stop religious intolerance.

DSC_0613-300x199DSC_0458-300x199Day- 2:
The 2nd Day of the event began with the much awaited Special Address by Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh, Mr. Md. Shahidul Haque. In his remarks, he emphasized on particular issues that need to be worked upon to enhance the bilateral relationship between India and Bangladesh. These issues include water, terrorism, cyber security, energy security, oil transportation, power trading, nuclear power and electricity generation.

Session – 1:
Topic: Securing Borders, Securing People

Speakers:
Chair: H.E. Shri MJ Akbar
Keynote Papers: Ms. Sripriya Ranganathan and Major General (Retd.) Abdur Rashid

In his Keynote Paper titled “Radicalization & Terrorism”, Major General (Retd.) Abdur Rashid said, radicalization is a process by which individual or group comes to adopt violent ideology as a legitimate means. Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. He raised his concern about the fact that radicalization leads to terrorism because of poverty, disparity in charity world, absence of rule of law & justice, deficit in democracy, lack of good governance, presence of social inequality and violation of human rights.

In her Keynote Address, Ms. Sripriya Ranganathan, Joint Secretary (Bangladesh & Myanmar), MEA, Government of India, talked about the good state of relationship between Bangladesh & India. She mentioned that ongoing projects like rail-road connectivity, telecom, energy, science & technology, power, culture have lead to a positive momentum, which is extended by political partnership and the coordination among the agencies of both sides.

The Panelists for the session were Capt Alok Bansal, Shri Swapan Dasgupta, Dr. Syed Manzurul Islam, Shri Swapan Dasgupta and Prof. Delwar Hossain. They discussed about the growing Radicalization and the need to develop a comprehensive Deradicalization strategy; the need for maritime boundary agreement; the need for Bangladesh to make an economic and financial relation with India; the problem of illegal currency and the issue of local security.

Session – 2:
Topic: Creating the Access of Prosperity and Growth Leverages

Speakers:
Chair: Mr. Shahriar Alam
Keynote Papers: Shri Shakti Sinha and Dr. Gowher Rizvi

The first Keynote Paper was presented by Shri Shakti Sinha, Director, South Asian Institute for Strategic Affairs, New Delhi. He stated Bangladesh could be the centre of manufacturing industries and that there are a lot of investment opportunities. He also emphasized on the need for a comprehensive water and energy framework in South Asia.

Dr. Gowher Rizvi, Foreign Affairs Adviser to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh expressed that the award of the much talked about Teesta water sharing agreement would make positive development. He stressed that harnessing the Himalayan water resources has a huge potential and remains untapped in the region especially in Nepal and Bhutan. India-Bangladesh relations are currently billed as being ‘at their best’ though there are issues of the water sharing and border management sectors. He also said that the border killings have been reduced drastically now than what it was during the BNP regime.

The panelists included Shri Binod Bawri, Director, India Foundation, Ms. Sripriya Ranganathan, Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Dr. Qazi Khaliquzzaman Ahmed, Governing Chairman and Prof. Mustafizur Rahman, CPD Executive Director.

Session – 3:
Topic: Architecture of Connectivity: Resource, Transport and Power

Speakers:
Chair: Shri Shakti Sinha
Keynote Papers: Dr. Tawfiq-e-Elahi Chowdhury and Mrs. Veena Sikri

The Chair of the session Shri Shakti Sinha, Director, South Asian Institute for Strategic Affairs, New Delhi, stated that Bangladesh and India particularly very striving to establish connectivity. Solution beneficial for both countries and solution that is politically determinate was the main focus of this session.

The first Keynote Paper was presented by Dr. Tawfiq-e-Elahi Chowdhury, Energy Adviser to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. He stated that, “Resources, power & transport are the architecture of connectivity between two countries”. He also spoke about challenges in power connectivity and emphasized that energy trade cooperation is the way out of energy poverty.

Smt. Veena Sikri, former Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh, highlighted all the potentials India and Bangladesh hold in establishing connectivity but laid importance on shifting to multimodal transport-based linkages in a new paradigm shift in regional and sub-regional cooperation. She also stressed for safe financial transactions and that the region boasts huge potential in air connectivity. The Indian diplomat also suggested enhancing the connectivity between India and Bangladesh through rail to establish link under Bangladesh- Bhutan-India-Nepal (BBIN) deal. She stated “We have to look at new paradigm, we really have to move multimodal way of transportation for the shift”.

The group of panelists including Shri Prafulla Ketkar, Editor, Organiser, Capt Alok Bansal, Director, India Foundation, Mr. Munshi Faiz Ahmad and Mr. Abdul Mutlub Ahmed, President of BIISS also shared their thoughts about the future architecture of connectivity.

DSC_0369-300x199DSC_0359-300x199Valedictory Session
At the end of the two day dialogue between Bangladesh and India, the ‘Dhaka declaration’ was presented by Shri Shakti Sinha, Director, South Asian Institute for Strategic Affairs, New Delhi. He stated that the Dialogue was nurtured to answer many of the frequently asked questions and is expected to render a reality check about the future that the two countries, Bangladesh and India, may hope to be heading into.

He further added that the Dialogue has put emphasis to reinforce cooperation between Bangladesh and India in the field of maritime security, developing further shared interests in the preservation of the natural resources, improving security in the Indian Ocean and evoking the historical bonds that exist between the two countries. He was of the view that both the countries may keep the Blue Economy at the center of maritime cooperation, whereby much emphasis would be laid on seabed exploration for hydrocarbons; marine services; seafood processing and aquaculture; fishing; deep ocean water application; seaport related activities; marine renewable energies, exchange of expertise and ocean knowledge. The Dhaka Declaration recommended that Bangladesh and India may exchange, develop and improve jointly quality of literary and artistic creation; confirm and commend values of the true, the good and the beautiful, and combat anti-progress manifestations.

In the continuation of this last session along with the Dhaka Declaration the whole program was summed up with recommendations from the chief guests and panelists. The point was raised on how Bangladesh can take advantage of India as one of the largest growing economies and in turn how Bangladesh could be integral to India’s national and international security and concluded with the hope that the Dialogue will reconvene in Delhi, India, towards the end of 2016 or early 2017 for its Eighth Round to conclusively discuss three more of the identified intervention areas.

4th International Dharma-Dhamma Conference

The Centre for Study of Religion and Society (CSRS) of India Foundation is organising the 4th International Dharma-Dhamma Conference on 21-23 October, 2016. The previous editions of the Dharma-Dhamma Conference saw the participation of several hundreds of scholars from around the world.

The central theme of this year’s conference will be “Dharma and Polity”. The concept of dharma is pivotal to Asian modes of thinking and ways of living from the dawn of human civilization. In recent times there has been good deal of controversy with regard to the relation between religion and politics. The religiously pluralistic society calls for constant reinterpretation and renewal within religions to promote compatibility and complementarily between religious conceptions and social, political and economic measures. Discussions and debates will be held to imbibe the same sense upon people and political leaders of the society.

Further details will be announced shortly.

Explide
Drag