Russia, India and China remain focused against Western war conflicts in the East and are the “True Axis of Good” Justifiably determined to give their citizens much more prosperity and more peaceful patriotic pride while safely trading with the rest of the world.

The Russian Govt and President Vladimir Putin did everything possible ( and still continue to do) to resolve Ukraine matter more peacefully - The many Western politicians would not (and sadly still do not) allow it. So we don’t see the logic in blaming Russia for the awfulness of war when they were left with no option except to let the Russians living in Ukraine just lie down and die as well as have Russia and its citizens more endangered by Ukraine govt regime and their western weapons/financial war supporters.  Zelensky should have made peace with Russia in the first place instead of listening to the warmongering Western politicians. The saying “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” is wrong. It is… “People” who corrupt Power!

 THE COSTS TO WESTERN TAXPAYERS FOR THEIR GOVERNMENT'S WAR IN UKRAINE AGAINST RUSSIA:

The total amount of direct budget support from the EU to Ukraine in 2023 so far is 6 billion euros (£5.3bn).  According to the EU Commission website, this brings the total support made available (from the commission and EU member states) since the beginning of Russia’s SMO to more than 50 billion euros (£44.2bn). This excludes the financial support given to cater to Ukrainians fleeing the war. The USA Since the war began, the Biden administration and the U.S. Congress have directed more than $75 billion in assistance to Ukraine, which includes humanitarian, financial and military support, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. The BK(Broken Kingdom) provided £2.3 billion in military support to Ukraine in 2022 and has already committed the same level of military support in 2023, totaling £4.6 billion over both years.  “ALL” of this taxpayer's money could and should have been spent on their own citizens to give them better education, lower taxes, less inflation, more jobs with higher wages “AND” more peaceful prosperous safer futures for the children!

RUSSIA CANNOT BE DEFEATED: The strategies the West is using in this war against Russia are a collection of past failed strategies. For example, sanctions have failed in Syria, Venezuela and Iraq to create regime change. Why then did they ever expect it to work against Russia? Then there is the use of corrupt, proxy regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and South Vietnam. Then there is hope that coercive diplomacy backed with casualties on the battlefield and economic damage at home would result in Russia's surrender, a strategy that failed in North Vietnam (body counts, bombing campaigns). Finally, there is the hope that the proxy army will achieve what a millennium of invasions of Russia (Teutonic knights, poles, swedes, Napoleon and Hitler) didn’t. We at The WHS Group of Companies, like millions of others in this world, are confused about why they think it will this time!  Never against Russia as…Russia and its citizens are unbeatable in more ways than one!

THE PEACEFUL PROSPEROUS FUTURE OF INDIA:

India is a big country that will always have China and Russia as it’s neighbors. If Asia wants to dominate the world for the next centuries India, Russia and China must learn the lessons of the European wars which ruined the continent. If the European countries had found negotiated solutions to their differences, they would still be the dominant ones.  India and China should cooperate and resolve their differences. In the World, China is the largest manufacturer and trader. Russia 2^nd largest producer of fossil fuels. India is due to be the 3^rd largest economy by 2030.

CHINA AND INDIA GOVTS MAKING MORE PEACE IS THE BEST STEP.

India and China dominated trade and economics historically for thousands of years before the European colonial period. If India sincerely accepts the truth that the origin of its border problems with China was due to the high-handedness and injustice committed by their British colonial masters against China, when China was weak, then the India-China border dispute can easily be resolved.  The resolution of this made-in-Britain border dispute would bring the two historical superpowers, India and China, together, and in alliance with their common ally/neighbor, the great federation of Russia would definitely propel the power and economies of the 3 nations and the non-western majority world to greater heights.

RUSSIA AND CHINA:

Russia and China are combining their best for a more peaceful world. They are facilitating the transition towards a multi-polar world, dominated by multiple voices rather than the uni-polar world, dominated by a single voice, namely that of the USA and its "allies". Neither Russia or China have become the World's engine for growth by chance. China is energy-hungry and Russia is energy-rich. Collectively they lead the world in military technology, and China leads the world in manufacturing which Russia is happy to fuel with its oil, gas and coal. Despite the enmities of the past (created by many in the West with their scaremongering news games), the leadership in both nations not only recognized the mutual benefit of a closer partnership, but they also forged one.

For The West Making More Peace with Russia, China and India is the only battle worth waging if they wish to peacefully prosper and genuinely care in making the World a much more Safer Place for themselves and future generations.

The WHS Group of Companies  -  “It is our values and not our valuables which determine the worth of our life”.  We continue strengthening our business, asset protection C8 IND legal solution modules and cost-effective trade operations throughout the world so that many more good people/good companies who are not involved in war or terrorism can remain protected on many fronts.  The WHS Group Cyprus Business Trade Partner and Vice President of Project Investments Mr. Panikos G. Lapertas, is fully dedicated and focused on the growth of Cyprus while also making certain that more peaceful trade business services/investment solutions are increased in the region for people as well as for people in the Eastern countries. Mr. Ramon Cervantes our WHS Group of Companies Senior Partner and Vice President for Mexico Latin America Operations delivers the best commercial and land/trade investments and products from the regions so that many more people and businesses in the East also benefit. We hope that more peace among nations someday soon, returns again. There is no life worthy without peace and understanding among nations and people.

Joginder (Jo)  Singh Birring, The Global Chairman and Group President of The WHS Group of Companies. The views expressed are personal. 

P.V. Narasimha Rao played a pivotal role in building a modern and vibrant India through his transformative policies and leadership during his tenure as the ninth Prime Minister of India from 1991 to 1996. In his five-year term, Rao implemented significant economic reforms, navigated through political challenges, and helped shape India's global standing. His contributions to economic liberalization, foreign policy, and welfare programs have had a lasting impact on the country's development.

One of Rao's most notable achievements was his role in spearheading economic liberalization in India. When he took office in 1991, India was facing a severe economic crisis marked by high inflation, a ballooning fiscal deficit, and dwindling foreign exchange reserves. Rao, together with his Finance Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, introduced a series of bold economic reforms known as the "New Economic Policy." These reforms aimed to dismantle the license raj system, promote private sector participation, encourage foreign investment, and liberalize trade and industry.

Under Rao's leadership, India embarked on a path of economic reforms that led to significant structural changes in the country's economy. Key reforms included reducing import tariffs, dismantling industrial licensing, telecom reforms, banking reforms and opening up various sectors to foreign investment. These measures stimulated competition, fostered entrepreneurship, and attracted foreign capital inflows. As a result, India experienced a period of rapid economic growth, with increased industrial output, technological advancements, and improved living standards for many segments of society.

Rao's economic reforms also helped integrate India into the global economy. He actively pursued a policy of globalization and international cooperation, seeking to strengthen India's ties with major economic powers and foster foreign investment. Rao's government initiated negotiations that eventually led to India's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, opening up new opportunities for trade and investment. These efforts helped position India as an emerging global player and laid the foundation for its subsequent economic growth and integration into global value chains.

In addition to his economic achievements, Rao made significant contributions to India's foreign policy. He recognized the importance of fostering friendly relations with neighboring countries and worked towards improving India's diplomatic ties. Rao initiated dialogue with China and signed several agreements, including the Border Peace and Tranquillity Agreement in 1993, which aimed to reduce border tensions between the two countries. He also initiated the Look East Policy, which sought to strengthen India's engagement with Southeast Asian nations and enhance regional cooperation. He strengthened relations with Israel and started a new era in Indo- the Israeli diplomatic journey.

Rao's tenure witnessed several important developments in India's relations with the United States. He visited the US in 1994, marking the first state visit by an Indian Prime Minister in over a decade. This visit helped reinvigorate bilateral ties and laid the groundwork for a closer strategic partnership between the two countries in subsequent years. Rao's government also pursued a policy of nuclear non-proliferation, which contributed to India's improved international standing and eventual recognition as a responsible nuclear power.

Furthermore, Rao prioritized social progress and advocated for inclusive growth. He introduced measures to address social inequalities and uplift marginalized communities. Rao's government implemented affirmative action policies, such as reservations for scheduled castes and tribes in education and government jobs, aimed at empowering historically disadvantaged groups. He also launched the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, which guaranteed 100 days of employment per year for rural households, addressing rural poverty and unemployment. He strengthened the DWACRA program to empower the women of India and a massive rural development program to boost the rural economy.

Rao's leadership during a period of political volatility and chaos was also commendable. As the head of a minority government, he successfully navigated a complex and fragmented political landscape. Rao skilfully managed coalitions and built consensus across party lines to implement key reforms and ensure political stability. His ability to garner support and maintain a delicate balance of power enabled him to push forward with his agenda for change.

In conclusion, P.V. Narasimha Rao not only played a transformative role in shaping the modern and vibrant India we see today but also harbored a deep longing for a peaceful life dedicated to his literary passions. Despite his undeniable impact on the nation's progress, he often expressed his preference for a teaching job over a political career that according to him was a thankless job, believing that pursuing his intellectual interests would have brought him true contentment. The legacy of this departed soul resonates with a grateful nation of over a billion people, as his efforts uplifted the lives of millions of aspiring Indians and laid the foundation for a brighter future.

Inputs from Late PV Narasimha Rao ji son Mr Prabhakar Rao.  

Education is a fundamental human right and a key driver of economic and social progress. Recognizing the importance of education, the Indian government introduced the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which is a comprehensive framework for the development of education in the country. The NEP 2020 aims at transforming the Indian education system by making it more inclusive, holistic, and flexible. 

The NEP 2020 aims to transform higher education in the country by promoting research and innovation, establishing new multidisciplinary institutions, and increasing the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education.

The NEP 2020 is clear when it comes to matters of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. It lays great emphasis on the autonomy and academic freedom of institutions.  
Autonomy in higher education may be defined as a functional status given to universities and colleges by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for giving greater flexibility towards academic development with regard to the improvement of academic standards and excellence. An autonomous college/institution is given the freedom to be a norm to itself and for self-governance. College autonomy enables colleges to award degrees on behalf of the affiliating University by providing more academic and operative freedom to function better with credibility. The UGC guidelines for autonomous colleges (2018) highlighting the importance of autonomous colleges, indicate that the only safe and better way to enhance the standard of undergraduate education is to delink most of the colleges from the affiliate system. Further, it states that colleges with academic and operative freedom are doing better and have more credibility and the financial support to such colleges boosts the concept of autonomy. 

The idea of a common syllabus in higher education appears to be mooted in a few states for improving the quality of education.  This idea is against the objectives and the spirit of the NEP 2020. The issue of inadequacy of the quality of education needs deeper evaluation. Though the syllabus lays the framework for carrying out the teaching-learning process, quality is predominantly decided by the efficacy of teaching-learning processes for greater learning. The vision, competence and commitment of institutional leadership, teachers, and staff play a critical role in improving the quality of education in HEIs. The rhetoric for having a common syllabus shall eventually diminish the possibility of certain HEIs achieving distinctions.

The basic objectives of NEP 2020 clearly rule out the Common Syllabus. Section (11.6). of the NEP 2020 policy clearly states that large multidisciplinary universities and colleges will facilitate the move towards high-quality holistic and multidisciplinary education. Flexibility in curriculum and novel and engaging course options will be on offer to students, in addition to rigorous specialization in a discipline or discipline. This will be encouraged by increased faculty and institutional autonomy in setting curricula. Pedagogy will have an increased emphasis on communication, discussion, debate, research, and opportunities for cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary thinking. Further, the NEP section (12.2) reads "in order to promote creativity, institutions and faculty will have the autonomy to innovate on matters of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment...Accordingly, curriculum and pedagogy will be designed by institutions and motivated faculty to ensure and stimulating and engaging learning experience for all students.” The question of whether there should be a common syllabus for undergraduates in higher education in India is a complex and contentious one. There are arguments both in favour of and against a common syllabus.

On the one hand, advocates of a common syllabus argue that it would promote standardization and uniformity in higher education, ensuring that all students are exposed to a similar set of knowledge and skills. This would help to address issues of inequality and disparities in access to education across different regions and socioeconomic backgrounds. If all the universities in India follow a uniform syllabus, they argue, it would help to reduce the apprehension of those students whose parents are in transferable jobs and that students may use the same books wherever they go and this in turn would help at reducing the cost of any further purchases. Moreover,  it would h also lessen the burden on the brain of the students as they could follow the same syllabus wherever they go without having to lose at least one very precious academic year. 
On the other hand, critics of a common syllabus argue that it would stifle innovation and creativity, and limit the ability of individual institutions to develop unique programs that cater to their specific strengths and areas of expertise. Furthermore, India is a diverse country with many different languages and cultures, and imposing a single syllabus could be seen as an attempt to homogenize this diversity.

Higher education is all about disseminating specialized knowledge. Every institution is supposed to develop its own specialized domain for recognition.  A common syllabus across institutions is against the spirit of such specialized centres of learning. Secondly, a common syllabus across institutions especially in a country like India is likely to erase local and regional concerns, especially in Social Sciences and humanities there should be an emphasis on regional variations in knowledge dissemination to cater to the minds of students of that region.  A Common syllabus across the length and breadth of a vast country like India would fail to do so. There is a high possibility that a particular region, culture, or social configuration shall be hegemonically imposed ignoring regional diversities and concerns.  

A common syllabus fails to take into account inputs from diverse stakeholders not only regionally but in terms of community, religion, caste, gender etc. For example, an Indian literature paper from a university in UP is bound to differ from that of the University of Maharastra, or a history syllabus from Tamil Nadu will differ from that of a university in Assam. Teaching all students across the National spectrum the same syllabus shall be insular. Unless there is diversity in the courses, new subjects will not be created.
Until all the universities/colleges have the same process of admissions, fee structure, uniform examination pattern, and infrastructure – teachers, labs, subject-related equipment, library, etc., applying the same curriculum can be fatal. It doesn't seem to be possible in colleges. Ultimately, the decision on whether to implement a common syllabus in Indian higher education should be based on careful consideration of the potential benefits and drawbacks, as well as a recognition of the unique challenges and opportunities presented by the Indian context. Above all, by introducing a common syllabus we will be sabotaging the spirits of NEP 2020.

The idea of a common syllabus across all HEIs in India may attract the imagination of policymakers and other stakeholders because of its emphasis on “uniformity”. But a closer critical look would expose its fault lines. Moreover, the adoption of a common syllabus with minimum flexibility conceals ideological agenda that is against the spirit of academic federalism and autonomy, the backbone of higher education.   

The author is a Former Vice Chancellor Kanpur & Gorakhpur Universities

The preamble of the Indian constitution reads “We the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic………do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this constitution.” The sovereign people of this land gave themselves a constitution, an essential rulebook for a constitutionally guided democratic order. Over the length of 395 articles, the Constitution contains the art of modern statecraft, division of power, rule of law, and a unique feature of a democratic polity: a set of rights for its citizens. Over the years, the country’s jurisprudence and scholarly discourses have successfully established that Fundamental Rights are the critical feature of the basic structure of Indian Constitution. In giving themselves the Constitution, the people had reserved these rights for themselves.

Once India commenced its journey of statehood and governance, citizens’ Fundamental Rights did come under threat. In independent India, A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) opened Pandora’s box for numerous cases that shaped the constitutional discourse around Fundamental Rights. Interestingly, the prime contender of citizens’ rights is the State. Here, the story of Article 19 (1) (a) warrants special attention. Freedom of speech and expression although have been granted to the people of India, the framers have always treated these rights with caution. A series of diligent discussions around ‘due process’ to ‘reasonable restriction’ were some of the common sights of the Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD), to conditionally restrict the exercise of rights by the citizens. It is rather remarkable for a country that released itself from the spell of oppressive colonial rule, to adopt a constitution that legitimises preventive detention measures. Preventive detention was significantly thriving during the infamous Emergency period under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

Interestingly, what was a widely exercised law after the independence of the Indian state was the law of sedition (IPC section 124A). The legislative genesis of the law can be traced back to 1870, which briefly reads any attempt of expressing/inciting disaffection towards the Government established by law as seditious. Notably, sedition was widely instrumentalised during colonial period to curb decent, free speech, and most attempts of freedom struggle.  It is precisely in this context, the restriction on free political speech draws our attention. History of India’s jurisprudence presents us with a string of cases where the constitutional courts at times showcase some interesting stances. Whereas there are cases like Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950), Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others v. Union of India (1961), or Ram Nandan v. Sate (1958), the Court cemented a progressive outlook towards the right to free speech. But, at the same time, the precedents set by cases like Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) where legal voids are filled by the Court to corroborate the executive’s narrative cast doubts over the Judiciary’s role as a defender of constitutional rights.

These concerns knock at our doors again owing to the recent increase in the widespread exercise of the sedition law and active effort to curb free speech. The polity witnessed two trends of behaviour on the part of the State: first, free speech was increasingly conflated with ‘hate speech’ and second, the courts became completely ignorant of the protection of citizen’s constitutional rights. However, in the subsequent years the Supreme Court’s verdicts in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), and Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) raised some crucial aspects that impel us to rethink the significance of Fundamental Rights and the role if the judicature as the ultimate guardian of these rights. The Court’s verdicts in these cases could be read through the following three lenses: first, the fundamental logic behind free speech is to encourage a rich democratic environment where free political thinking can take place. Second, the prima facie reason behind granting freedom of expression is to reinforce popular sovereignty where diverse political concerns can be equally represented, and third, laws concerning hate speech whose constitutional credentials are questionable, require a broader interpretation. Rather than clinging to the old standard of interpreting an act’s probability to disrupt public order, the Court noted an approach that takes cognizance of the direct consequences of a speech in question.

The Court’s behaviour in handling the cases of free speech where the executive is a contender raises some important concerns about the Constitution and the role of the judicature as its guardian. Parliamentary sovereignty and an independent judiciary, both constitute a significant part of the Constitution’s basic structure. However, over the seven decades of co-existence, these institutions raise some critical questions about their institutional arrangement and constitutionally granted roles: First, although the Fundamental Rights are justiciable, are they always under the threat of violation by the State?  Second, to what extent an independent judiciary is instrumental in keeping a check on the sovereign power uniquely exercised by the executive? Third, to whom does the Constitution belong?: to the right-bearing citizens or to the institutions of the State. 

The Supreme Court had in 2022 intervened to examine the constitutionality of the sedition law in India effectively suspending all pending and future cases under this law. However, section 124A is not the only stick at the hands of the executive. There are equally effective and arbitrary measures available for example, section 2(1)(o)(iii) of the Unlawful Activity Prevention Act (1963) which defines sedition as a criminal offense leaving its legal definition substantially vague and unclear. The frequent application of these laws by the State against the citizens poses some crucial concerns about the judicial protection of Fundamental Rights and the constitutional necessity of the basic structure.

The progressive transformation of human civilisation from the social contract to constitutional democracy is marked by a crucial feature: a set of rights that protect the citizens from the State’s sovereign power and at the same time offer them equal say in governance. The logic behind this reasoning can be found in constitutional morality, elaborately discussed in the Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD). The premise of constitutional morality encourages argumentative sensibilities against a singular mode of thinking. The ultimate goal is to preserve a system where popular sovereignty and right -bearing citizens can co-exist together. In representative democracies, citizens exercise their electoral rights to assert popular sovereignty. However, it is notable that notwithstanding the formation of a representative government, the right-bearing citizens do not reduce to something lesser than popular sovereignty. The constitution has created an arrangement where both equals can co-exist together. The basic structure of the Indian Constitution asserts the rule of law as one of the fundamental elements of Indian polity applicable to both the State and its citizens. It is the constitutionally granted duty of the judiciary to treat everyone equally under the law.

The author is a Research Scholar, Shiv Nadar Institution of Eminence