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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared in TheTelegraph.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared in The Indian Express.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared in The Indian Express.

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

~ By Chandrachur Singh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II

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

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

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

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

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

III

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4] ibid

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

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

[7] ibid

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

[9] ibid

[10] ibid

[11] ibid

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

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

~ By Bryan Stout

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~ By Sanjal Shastri

The past two years have been particularly challenging for Turkey. On one hand, the Turks are facing threat from the ISIS. Sharing a porous border with Syria, it becomes a vulnerable target. The host of attacks on tourists and the attack on Istanbul airport add to the long list of ISIS attacks. On the other hand, Turkey also is also fighting a Kurdish separatist group the PKK. The July 16 Coup attempt adds a new dimension to Turkey’s duel battle.

There are some fundamental differences between Turkey’s ISIS and PKK problems. The PKK is fighting for a separate Kurdish homeland whose proposed territory includes parts of Turkey. Unlike the ISIS, the PKK is a secular organization. It is not involved with the ISIS’ larger goal of creating a caliphate. It is a group that operates across the international border with Syria. All the PKK fighters are Kurdish in ethnicity. The ISIS on the other hand is a part of a much larger global network. Turkey’s role in the international coalition against the ISIS and the open border with Syria make it an ideal target. Another fundamental difference between the PKK and the ISIS is the profile of targets they choose. The PKK mainly target government instillations. None of the PKK’s attacks have targeted civilian areas. The ISIS on the other hand chooses targets that are more crowed and often frequented by tourists. While there are marked differences between the two groups and their activities there is an underlying link between the war against ISIS, the PKK and the recent military coup attempt.

Concerns over law, order and national security due to the ISIS and PKK were factors that contributed to the attempted military coup. This was not the first attempt at a military takeover in the country. In 1960, 1971, 1980 and 1997 four civilian governments were overthrown. Economic hardships, threats to the secular fabric of the state and spiraling security issues were common factors that led to these coups. In 2016 similarly the government of Erdogan, has been accused of heavy handedness and threatening the country’s secular fabric. Increasing attacks by the ISIS and PKK have exposed the government’s failure to deal with national security. Going by the events in Turkish history, there is a link between increased instability and military coups.

The security concerns surrounding the PKK and the ISIS have put Turkey in a precarious position in Syria. On one hand Turkey wants to see the defeat of the ISIS. Their increased presence and activities in Syria make them a serious security threat. On the other hand Turkey is also concerned about the position of Kurdish separatists in Syria. A stronger and more autonomous Kurdish region in Syria would strengthen the Kurdish separatists in Turkey. The challenge for Turkey today is that the Kurdish forces will play an important role in defeating the ISIS. They have been able to put up effective resistance against the IS in the Kurdish regions of Syria. To add to this, the Turkish government has come out openly supporting Basher al-Assad’s removal. While Turkey would be happy to see the defeat of the ISIS and the removal of president Assad, it would not be confortable with the Kurdish regions gaining greater autonomy. Given the current situation on the ground, defeating the ISIS would require some sort of a partnership with the Kurdish groups and President Assad. The USA has already softened its stand on Assad, taking note of his importance in the battle against ISIS. This leaves Turkey with a very difficult choice to make.

The attempted military coup complicates Turkey’s fight against the ISIS and the PKK. On one hand Turkey is seen as a key NATO allay in the fight against ISIS. The coup and the international response have strained ties between Turkey and the NATO allies. Within a day of the coup President Erdogan was quick to point a finger at Fethullah Gülen, a cleric who is in exile in USA. The claim has not gone down well with the American establishment. The Turkish government also closed down the airspace for American jets. This has put American operations against ISIS positions in Syria on hold. The increased tensions between Turkey and other NATO members will impact the fight against the ISIS.

Domestically, the failed coup is bound to create tensions between the military and the government. The coup comes at a time when the government is trying to up military operations against the Kurdish separatists in Turkey. On one hand there was growing concern within the military over the rising costs of Erdogan’s hardline approach. Just two days before the coup, the government signed a bill, which gave the military immunity against any judicial probe into the military’s activity domestically. Now after the coup it is difficult to see the government going ahead and implementing this bill. The success of Turkey’s fight against the Kurdish separatists depends on how effective a role the military would play. With strained ties between the government and the military, there are concerns over the status of military operations against the Kurdish groups.

The failed military coup has created a ‘Turkish Triangle’. The strained civil military relations add a new dimension to Turkey’s fight against the ISIS and PKK. A simultaneous fight against Kurdish groups, the ISIS and Basher al-Assad is not a viable option for the Turkish government. The key role being played by Kurdish groups and President Assad in the fight against ISIS makes them an important factor in the battle. Turkey today faces a difficult choice. The attempted military coup has added a new dimension to Turkey’s problems. The strained relations between Turkey and her NATO allies have impacted the fight against the ISIS. It has already led to a halt in US’ air operations against ISIS. Domestically the strained civil-military ties pose a challenge to the military operations against Kurdish separatists. Now, lacking the confidence of the military, there are question marks over President Erdogan’s battle against Kurdish separatists. Over the coming days, two factors are will determine the future course of events. Firstly, international response to the coup and its aftermath will determine how ties between Turkey and her NATO allies shape up. The questions over the extradition of FethullahGülen will decide how Turkish equations with USA change. Strained ties between Turkey and other NATO members would jeopardize the international fight against ISIS. Secondly, the battle against Kurdish separatists will hinge on President Erdogan’s ability to win back the confidence of the military. With the military’s support needed to continue the battle against Kurdish groups, one will need to keep a close eye on how the civil-military relations pan out over the coming days.

Sanjal Shastri is an Academic Associate with the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. The views expressed are his own and do not represent the views of the organization he is associated with.