The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, immediately after coming to power had made better relations with neighbours one of the key pillars of his foreign policy and in one of the boldest initiative he went out of his way to invite the heads of states or the heads of government of all SAARC states and Mauritius for the swearing in ceremony. Accordingly, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was invited for the swearing in ceremony and he rightfully responded by attending the ceremony and gave a positive stimulus to the emerging bonhomie by rejecting a call by The Kashmiri separatists to meet them during his visit. Subsequently, the prime minister further expressed his intentions to take all the neighbours along and even offered to launch a SAARC satellite for them. In keeping with this prevailing atmosphere of trust, it was decided that the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan should meet in Islamabad on 25 August 2014, to lay a platform for reviving the composite dialogue process, which had been stalled for two years.
However, this whole progress towards peace was vitiated, when Pakistan’s envoy decided to meet the separatist leaders of ‘Hurriyat Conference’ despite Indian Foreign secretary’s directive against it. After exhibiting blatant insensitivity towards the host country’s concerns and having violated the diplomatic niceties, it was imperative for Indian government to act and it acted suitably. Its action was just and appropriate. The excuse that previous Indian governments had allowed Pakistani envoys and visiting dignitaries to meet the Hurriyat, does not indemnify Pakistani diplomat’s action especially as it was done after having been specifically told against it by the Indian Foreign secretary. This transgression becomes even more acute, when one looked at in the context of Indian conduct in Islamabad. No Indian envoy or visiting Indian official has ever visited any nationalist leader from Pakistan occupied Kashmir, though many anti-Pakistan movements are flourishing there. It is well known that one nationalist leader from Gilgit-Baltistan, who had visited India in the past and has been extremely critical of Pakistani occupation, is suffering from grave medical problems, but has been prevented from seeking medical treatment abroad by the Pakistan government, which has impounded his passport and placed his name on the Exit Control List. Although the individual concerned is slowly inching towards his end, no one from the Indian government or its envoys have met him or provided him much needed medical aid as they do not want to offend Pakistan, even though this could qualify as genuine humanitarian aid.
The current action of cancelling the talks will ensure that at the very least, as long as this government is in power, no visiting Pakistani official will dare to meet these separatist leaders. Many ‘learned’ Indian analysts believe that the government should have stopped the Hurriyat leaders from meeting the Pakistani envoy rather than cancelling the talks.It would however, have been the wrong approach, as the separatists despite being used by external agencies, are citizens of a democratic country, and should have the freedom to go wherever they want. More significantly, any action to stop them or arrest them would have given them undue publicity as almost all of them are spent forces, with absolutely no credibility or support base. On the other hand, the Pakistani envoy is expected to remain within the diplomatic norms and therefore should have avoided meeting them, when specifically directed by Indian government.
Does the calling off of Foreign Secretary level talks, a big setback to India-Pak relations and peace process? Not the least, as the talks were scheduled at a time, when Pakistan is going through extreme turbulence and the situation in Islamabad appears most fluid. It would have been extremely futile to talk to a government , whose sustenance and support is questionable. More significantly, the two prime ministers could still meet in New York on the side lines of UN General Assembly meeting, if Nawaz manages to remain in office and Pakistan does not indulge in any further acts of provocation. This also raises another question, as to why did Pakistan’s envoy meet the Hurriyat leaders, when his own Prime Minister had refused to meet them just three months ago. The possible reason is that the high commissioner was acting at the behest of General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi rather than the Foreign Office in Islamabad. Probably his action was guided by a sense of self preservation, considering the tenuous state of Nawaz Sharif’s government. The recent increase in cases of ceasefire violations across the Line of Control also indicates that the GHQ has decided to increase the tensions between the two countries, possibly with an attempt to divert attention of its citizens from the internal turmoil.
This raises the important question, should India be talking to Pakistan, especially at this point of time, when Pakistan has still not acted against the planners and collaborators of Mumbai attack. There is a need to put pressure on Pakistan to deliver on the terrorism front, but in the long term talks with Pakistan are essential to show to the international community and Pakistan’s populace that India wants peace. This would go a long way in weakening Pakistan Army’s influence in state’s polity, as it thrives on anti-India sentiments. However, the current time frame, when Pakistan is undergoing serious instability is certainly not the best time for talks, while India must do everything that could strengthen democracy in Pakistan, without in any way compromising India’s core interests; it may be prudent to avoid talks till some clarity emerges about the future of Pakistan’s government.

Alok Bansal is Director, Centre for Security & Strategy, India Foundation. The views expressed are his own.

One of the most widely spoken about moves of the BJP led NDA Government as it took power on May 26, 2014 and also the one that was on every one’s mind was – “What was the Government going to do with the Planning Commission?”. Innumerable stories and editorials made its way, some citing probable suggestions to reinvent the Commission and some even naming probable candidates who are expected to take on the mantle of the Commission.

While many media houses both mainstream and social, ran campaigns on what should Prime Minister Narendra Modi speak during his Independence Day speech, none predicted that the decision on Planning Commission could feature or at least a decision in this regard could be possible in his speech.

Inference, yet again Prime Minister Narendra Modi has proved he is faster than the media and is known for setting the agenda for their reportage.

On the ramparts of the Red Fort during his maiden speech, Prime Minister Modi elucidated that the Planning Commission had outlived its use and quite rightly, lost its relevance in today’s social political scene in India, and that there is a need to disband it. The import of the decision comes from Prime Minister’s own words ‘Co-operative Federalism’. In his maiden speeches in both the houses of the Parliament, PM Modi made it clear that states must develop for India to develop.

One of the hurdles in the way to attain the aforesaid objective was the very existence of Planning Commission and its powers. The Commission as such was set up by Nehru in the 1950s and was primarily tasked to develop five year plans. Over time, the commission evolved to allocate funds and most notably grew as a centre of political power. As on date, the main role of the Planning Commission is to allocate funds for projects and schemes, whose underlying aim is to help in the developmental process and to promote a rapid rise in the standard of living of Indians. This is done by exploitation of the resources of the country to promote inclusive development via the delivery of public goods and services. From planning of roads to figuring out how much to fund for programmes like NREGA, decisions need to be taken in order to allocate public funds to States, along with blueprints for implementation and monitoring.

The major flaw with the conception of the Commission was that it was not visionary and far-sighted. The scene in India today is such that coalition governments and regional parties have decentralised the political structure and therefore there is further need now for more devolution of planning to state and local levels. One of the biggest casualties of the Planning Commission was that states and local bodies were excluded. They were never given the opportunity to have a say in formulating an economic or project oriented blue print, leave alone implementation.

Another major criticism which the Commission faced from the likes of many experts is that it gets into allocation of both planned and non-planned expenditure as well as controlling them. Several governments came and went, but none could effectively enumerate steps for the Commission to reinvent.

The Commission drew up economic plans on its own and in turn expected the state governments to be inspired by them. With the economy opening up, large number of private players entering the scene and with zero involvement of the state governments and local bodies, the Commission was cut off from the grass roots.

All said and done, till date there have been no concrete solutions from the Commission to actually end poverty. Since its inception, there have been many attempts to reinvent and redefine the Planning Commission but none have fructified.

With so much criticism coming its way, the next logical step was to reinvent the Commission to be a body which can provide expertise on developmental reforms. This is exactly what Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP led NDA government have embarked upon. As per reports, the Planning Commission is set to be disbanded and replaced with the National Development and Reforms Commission. The new Commission is set to be headed by the Prime Minister, the deputy head will be the Finance Minister and most importantly the body will also include three state finance ministers and three industrialists.

In sync with Co-operative federalism, the inclusion of state finance ministers signifies the intent of the Central government to take states along at the policy formulation and at the implementation levels. In addition, as soon as he took charge Prime Minister Modi directed the Finance Minister to deal with the states directly in terms of allocation and regulation of funds and the Prime Minister’s Office to attend to grievances from the states on a priority basis. The inclusion of industrialists signals that the Government is aware of the role that private sector plays in the nation’s economic growth.

Having governed a state for 13 years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is acutely aware of the federal structure and the changing times in which states have to be given maximum impetus. What is most certainly happening under Narendra Modi is that States are becoming more relevant having been included in the process of nation building.

The article is written by Sudarshan Ramabadran who is a Research Scholar at India Foundation. The views expressed are his own. 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s path breaking speech from the ramparts of the Red Fort on the 68^th Independence Day, aims to take India to a new strata. After a long time, common man was allowed to attend the function and the Prime Minister breaking from the norms established by his predecessors spoke extempore and without security of a Bullet proof enclosure. Field Marshal Manekshaw had once remarked that fear is natural to men, but a good leader must never exhibit fear. By addressing his countrymen without the security of a bullet proof jacket or enclosure, the Prime Minister has exhibited fearlessness and true leadership qualities. In also what should rank as a first,rising above petty politics, he acknowledged the contribution of previous Prime Ministers and governments;in bringing India to current level of Development. He also categorically stated that he was addressing his countrymen not as Pradhan Mantri(Prime Minister) but as Pradhan Sevak(Prime Servant), thereby reemphasising his focus on ‘Maximum Governance, Minimum Government’.

In a statesman like speech, the Prime Minister unveiled his agenda for growth and development asking his countrymen to rise above caste and communal identities and to impose a ten year moratorium on such sectarian violence. Taking a leaf out of his speech to the Constituent Assembly of Nepal, the Prime Minister asked the ‘misguided’ youth to shun the path of terrorism and Naxalism and to replace guns with plough to usher in peace and prosperity. Continuing his emphasis on farming he reiterated La lBahadur Shashtri’s slogan of ‘Jai Jawan Jai Kisan’. At the same time realising the fact that over dependence on agriculture for employment had contributed to thefragmentation of land holdings and has consequently, reduced agricultural productivity, he emphasised on the need to promote manufacturing. He exhorted his countrymen as well as international industries to make India a global manufacturing hub for quality products without impacting the environment adversely.In a significant move, he emphasised on the need for skill development and manufacturing of electronic goods, which have become a major component of India’s import.He urged the industrialists to take a pledge to manufacture at least one item that was being imported, so that India not only stops importing it, butalso starts exporting it.

In one of the most revolutionary scheme with far reaching consequences, the Prime Minister announced Jan Dhan Yojna, which will enable each Indian including the poorest of the poor, to have a bank account with a debit card, overdraft facility and an insurance ofRupees one lakh. This will in times to come, enable the government to transfer subsidies directly to the needy, thereby eliminating unnecessary government expenditure in giving subsidies to all including those, who do not deserve it.  In addition, it will also provide the poor citizens of India cheap credit as well as much needed social security.

On social front, the Prime Minister, asked the society to shun its preference of male child and exhorted it to improve the sex ratio and the treatment of women. As in the past and following up from the President’s speech on the eve of Independence Day, he emphasised on the pressing need for sanitation and cleanliness.  He stated that a clean India would be the most fitting tribute toGandhijion his 150^th birth anniversary in 2019. The emphasis on cleanliness is not only likely to reduce diseases and the health problems of the population;but also the cleaner environment will give a fillip to the tourism, which has enormous capacity to generate employment across social, skill and economic spectrum. He lamented the absence of toilet facilities for women andurged building of toilets, so that women could feel secure.Heurged the corporate houses to set up separate toilets for boys and girls in schools, as part of their ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’. He unveiled Saansad Adarsh Gram Yojna, whereby each Member of Parliament including members of Rajya Sabha and those elected from urban constituencies could identify at least five villages by 2019, to be built as model villages. He also requested the state governments to extend similar schemes for the members of legislative assemblies and councils.

In the field of governance, the Prime Minister lamented the fact that his insistence on punctuality in the government offices, which should have been the norm, was making the headlines. He regretted the fact that various departments within the government were functioning as independent entities, often bickering with one another, to the extent that the disputes were being resolved through judicial interventions. He stated that he wanted the government to function as a unified entity rather than as an assemblage of disparate entities. Emphasising on E-Governance, he said that India had surprised the world with its IT skills and there was a need to move towards a ‘Digital India’.  He stated that the government was committed to good governance through E-Governance, which enables easy governance and effective governance.Planning Commission, which has outlived its utility and has been a vestige of controlled economy, was often perceived as a huge impediment by the state for their developmental plans and accordingly the Prime Minister announced its scrapping and replacement by a Think Tank to advise the central and state governments.

The Prime Minister’s speech was significant in the way that unlike in the past it did not talk about the external powers and on the contrary, exhibiting his vision he talked about taking all the SAARC countries on the path of growth and prosperity.  There is no doubt that many of South Asia’s problems stem from artificial borders often created by colonial powers and consequent disruption of inter dependent economies.  Having invited all the SAARC leaders for his swearing in ceremony and having started his bilateral foreign visits with SAARC countries, the Prime Minister has possibly hinted towards a vision of taking South Asia towards South Asian Economic Union and possibly South Asian Union.

This article is written by Capt. Alok Bansal. He is the Director of Centre for Security and Strategy, India Foundation.  The views expressed are his own.