Some experts say that unless we go back to the 1996 model, the problem in J&K will continue
It was unusual for the arch-rivals and former chief ministers Farooq Abdullah and Omar Abdullah of the National Conference (NC) and Mehbooba Mufti of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to pose together for a photo last week in Srinagar. It was Mehbooba’s father and former Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, who had said that it was the coming together of the North Pole and the South Pole when his party had an alliance with the BJP to form the Government in 2017. Now the Abdullahs and the Muftis, the two influential families of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), have come together on account of their political compulsions.
Signifying the beginning of the political process, the six non-BJP parties have come together to demand the “return to the people of J&K the rights they held before August 5, 2019.” Farooq Abdullah claimed that “our battle is a constitutional battle.” He also clarified that “at the same time, we feel the political issue of the State has to be resolved as quickly as possible” and “that can be resolved only through dialogue with all the stakeholders who are involved in the problem of J&K.”
Analysts say that this new alliance could be a formidable political combination if it works. However, it is a very big “If” as Kashmiris have never stuck together. On August 4, 2019, the new alliance, named Gupkar, vowed to protect Kashmir’s special status. One year later, on August 22 this year, they met again to renew the pledge. The formal alliance was announced after Mehbooba was released after 14 months of detention last week. Besides the two NC leaders and the PDP chief, Jammu and Kashmir People’s Conference supremo Sajjad Ghani Lone as well as leaders of the Awami National Conference and People’s Movement were present. The only national party to join the alliance so far is the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The Congress, which had signed the declaration this August, stayed away even though it had received an invitation.
The new alliance is still evolving. The parties have come together for a broader cause as it gives them a platform. They are not like-minded politically but they have no option but to unite. The organisational structure of the alliance will be discussed in the next meeting. The first major step is unity and the rest will be decided as it evolves, say insiders who hope that this combination would win in the next elections if they put up joint candidates.
There were no political activities in J&K after August 5, 2019, once the Parliament enacted a law revoking the special status for it and bifurcated the State. The Government also replaced Article 35A to define “permanent residents” of J&K. New Delhi had claimed that these measures would help bring peace and development to J&K after three decades of conflict. Post abrogation of Article 370, J&K has been in a state of siege and lockdown. The political leaders of the main parties were detained and the lockdown, too, has directly impacted all facets of life. Schools and colleges are closed. The tourism industry is dead. The health sector has taken a massive hit and has been overburdened with Covid cases. It was indeed a double whammy for them.
But now, when all the leaders of J&K have been freed by the Centre and they have formed an alliance, the big question is, will the coalition find acceptance among the people of J&K? They have lost faith in the Central Government, the political parties and the State Governments that had ruled them till they were bifurcated and turned into a Union Territory. Many are convinced that the demand for restoration of special status would only become an electoral plank for the People’s Alliance. Hence, the test before the Abdullahs and Mehbooba will be to gain back the trust of the people and also strengthen their political parties. The next Assembly polls and delimitation are linked and no one knows when the elections will be held.
Meanwhile, the Centre’s initiative to create and hold direct elections to the district councils is a new experiment. The plan is to divide each district into 14 territorial constituencies and hold direct polls for the councils, which will replace the District Development Boards. The MLAs will be members of this council but their powers will be diluted. If this works, it will be grass root-level governance.
No doubt there is an urgent need to address the Kashmir problem at the domestic and international level. It is a good move to start the political process and probably both these initiatives could help achieve that. However, the political parties and the Centre need to bridge the trust deficit. Holding Assembly elections and processes for the restoration of statehood might also help heal the wounds. New Delhi has to think if it wants to revive the democratic process. Some experts say that unless we go back to the 1996 model, the problem in Kashmir will continue. Above all, the Government should resume the dialogue process with Pakistan as it is linked with bringing back normalcy in J&K.
(The writer is a senior journalist)
Military technology takes time to pass reliability tests but this gestation period can be shortened by thinking ahead. Chief among these innovations are the IoMT and IoBT
From a technological standpoint, we are living in a glorious age, the time of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, one marked by the transformative power of data and machine learning (ML). But the military has always been just a beat behind industry historically. Compounding this is the fact that military war fighting machines — particularly command and control systems — are complex and driven by reliability, speed and security. Today it is critical that the armed forces pull a half-level ahead to set the technological tone for the industry and create Military 4.5. It is a roadmap that will guide the innovation we need to keep the nation and its allies ready and compatible to keep themselves safe and free.
Military technology takes time to pass reliability tests but this gestation period can be shortened by thinking ahead. Chief among these innovations is the creation of the Internet of Military Things (IoMT) and the Internet of Battle Things (IoBT). Most of us are familiar with the IoMT’s civilian counterpart, the Internet of Things. Loosely described, it is the notion that machines can be made smarter and do much more for their human users, all through the application of sensors for the transmission and analysis of data. But the military version will be quite different from its consumer counterpart with thermostats that adjust a home’s energy levels or refrigerators that note when food will expire. The IoMT and the IoBT will be extended, hardened and more quickly advanced to help the armed forces make better decisions in a literal fraction of a second, win the missions necessary to defend the borders, promote force safety, warn and fix equipment well before it fails. The IoMT would enable hooking on to the larger network of organs engaged in related missions, working on national security by selecting secure domains by just the flick of a button and disconnect with the same ease. If IoMT is the mother that moves all things military in the war zone, ubiquitously, beginning at the apex/strategic level, the IoBT would be its subordinate that moves the “fighting things” (e.g., man and machine). The IoBT would work the fighting component on the battlefield in a physical manifestation of fighting battles of contact and proximity, typically in the tactical battle area.
We are well on our way to bringing the IoMT further along — but we need more from the industry. It should challenge itself to bring military hardware to comply with the digital needs of the systems to work as part of a defined combat domain. Combat systems have to work on data compatibility within the domain to infuse Artificial Intelligence (AI). Equipment manufacturers must know how much flexibility the user must be given to exploit the machine. Certain machines would have better programmability and others would require less, dependent on how much customisation is needed by its user. In a nutshell, not all equipment would be “plug and play” ready when received from the industry. The second industrial process, mostly in-house, would be needed to enable the equipment to become “plug and play” ready.
Find ways to better connect military machines: In the field, all the military’s machines — tanks, logistics, convoys, helicopters, fighter jets, command and control, medevac and so on — must work together as a harmonious, synchronous whole. This is the networked military, formally known as C5I2-STAR2 (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence and Information — Surveillance, Target Acquisition, Reconnaissance and Robotics). To understand the IoMT and IoBT, let us look at C5I2 and STAR2 as separate segments. To network war-fighting machines to the next level, we require the sensors and underlying infrastructure that make it possible for these disaggregated parts to work together in a seamless, automatic, even robotic way.
The first segment, C5I2, is to get the necessary inputs for decision-making; programme the higher to middle echelons; activate the battle fighting elements through the Command and Control mechanism based on the secure digital networks.
The second segment, STAR2, lies in moving battle platforms and machines. Surveillance and Target Acquisition requires sensors to be integrated for the operator. Reconnaissance and robotics supplement this process through automating the process with AI engines that would decide the effects to deliver to the acquired target within the pre-planned parameters. This would be the frontline cutting edge, powering the soldiers and machines to win battle engagements. Such technology would have to touch every part of the machine and operation (e.g., communications, security, weapons systems, flight controls, targeting systems). Inter-operability is critical and all systems must be totally interfaced. This does not exist today to the extent required. Sensors for military applications will not only be a multi-trillion dollar business but shall also bring more value in enriching the IoT concept.
Invest in and invent new materials: Companies and entrepreneurs adept at material and computer science will have an incredible competitive advantage if they turn their sights to military technology. Every part of the IoMT must be digitally controlled, down to the smallest sensors. If tanks are shot at, for example, they must be able to deflect projectiles, harden targetted surfaces or even be self-repaired. That means the need for light, self-healing, tough, amphibious materials that are eminently smart and survivable. They must work in all domains and also operate with impunity through contaminated zones such as Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) environment. This would prepare the military to fight hybrid wars under the CBRN overhang. The industry must help the armed forces to be faster in all respects, whether it is making an urgent repair in the field, gaining instantaneous situational awareness, or outmaneuvering an aggressive adversary. Non-traditional industry partners should feel encouraged to explore the possibilities of working with the military. The armed forces’ leadership sees the creativity, energy and speed of the commercial sector and is increasingly interested in the potential of partnering to leap ahead.
Give us predictive capability: Sensors open the door to knowing much more about the machines we rely on. If the industry can help us take a fresh look at the way our machines work, we can do more with them and save budget in the process. Any military machine, such as a fighting tank or an attack helicopter should possess a nervous system, a sensory system. Sensors would be part built-in surveillance, acting as eyes and ears, part a decision-aiding system, part engagement of the target system and part evasive capability, protecting from an attack, and so on.
Sensors could also tell us if and when a critical part will fail so we can pull it from the field and repair it. They could give us data on fuel usage and other factors, allowing us to predict the costs of field operations. They could predict what would happen in various engagement scenarios, empowering us with data that let us prioritise innovations that increase survivability, range, flight time, communications power, and so on.
Create reliable electromagnetic field communications: We must have greater spectrum efficiency, created through connectivity that relies not on fibre optics but through the undetectable electromagnetic field and space. Today, our communication capabilities over long distances still produce some latency, more so, when large volumes of data start to flow. As one can imagine, in the field, a delay of even a second or two can produce disastrous consequences. We need technology that drives total spectral efficiency so we can synchronise machines — and integrate allied weapons, troops and forces — on a very fine time sequence. There cannot be even a moment of latency — and that is the challenge we lay before the industry. There are heavy electronic emissions and signatures in the battlefield. Electronic Warfare (EW) sensors would need to deal with an overload of EW inputs. The targets which generate heavy signatures would be engaged by automated target acquisition programmes.
The defender must invest heavily in signature shields, deflection and deception. Imagine terabytes worth of data flowing into a few square kilometres of tactical battle area. With billions of IP addresses present in the same area, IP concealment or group addresses may have to be encrypted. Quantum technology would be at play to break and protect codes. Such operations can simply become too complicated for human control. This would necessitate getting the IoMT operating C5I2 segment to perform more efficiently to get hold of the complex STAR2 segment that runs the IoBT. MIL 4.5 is the future of military technological advantage. But it won’t be possible without the IoMT, which will underpin every aspect of operations.
With the military leadership’s guidance and the industry’s ability to deliver advances in sensors, telemetry, network centricity and more, we will achieve new heights of security.
(The writer is former Deputy Chief of Indian Integrated Defence Staff)
India has invited Australia to the Malabar naval exercises with the US and Japan. A reinforced Quad is ready to take Beijing head on
For long, India had not been too keen on firming up the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with Australia militarily. While it had committed to the security alliance in principle to rein in China in the Indo-Pacific region and been comfortable with the US and Japan, it had been wary of Australia’s role — considering its deep dependence on Chinese markets — and its ability to override economic imperatives. After all, China continues to be Australia’s largest trading partner and accounts for 32.6 per cent of its exports. Besides, China sources iron ore, coal and gas from Australia because of its geographical proximity and mined quality, preferring the latter over Brazil. India was sceptical about Australia doing anything to jeopardise this mutually beneficial relationship. Besides, both India and Australia, being in the neighbourhood, didn’t exactly want to rile up China or risk a hit-back by overtly upping the dragon’s anxieties. Therefore, India had never included Australia in the Malabar naval exercises, a series of simulated war games and combat manoeuvres it has been conducting with the US and Japan since 2017. Last year, the exercises were upgraded to complex maritime operations focussing on anti-submarine warfare, anti-air and anti-surface attacks, maritime interception and other tactical manoeuvres. But in a post-pandemic scenario, which has been entirely the fallout of China’s negligence and its neo-imperialism in a world flattened by the virus in more ways than one, new allies are realising that without standing together as a bulwark, there’s no chance of standing up to China’s might, the only nation to notch up positive growth in distressed times and in a position to dictate its terms again. Now both want competitive advantages at China’s expense. So India has finally announced Australia’s participation in the Malabar exercise along with the US and Japan, the Quad’s first full military-level engagement. This is significant geo-politically because four of the biggest democracies with stakes in the region are collectively committed to preserving open waters and hold off China’s misadventures to monopolise them ruthlessly. The initiative allows inter-operability between the four partners, which means accessing and using each other’s strengths and bases to pursue their common mission of maritime democracy. This makes Quad formidable. For far too long, the group has been under criticism for being amorphous, united by posturing than real intent and being half-hearted about taking on China in a real theatre of geo-strategic capabilities. The full-fledged military alliance gives a robustness of entity, one which can now embolden Quad plus nations to coalesce together against Chinese assertiveness and debt-trap diplomacy. Except the US, nobody in the group had directly dared to call out China. With a military-level agreement, there should not be trust issues anymore. And if mutual interests and concerns find congruence, then over time it could become what the US calls a NATO-like presence in Asia that could contain China’s expansionist designs and one-sided behaviour. Most significantly, the military alliance could also be strengthened to forging an economic coalition of sorts, for example setting up a Quad Free Trade Agreement (FTA) to attract investment and set up an alternative supply chain network that would reduce the dependence on China. Australia has been keen to be part of the Malabar exercises for quite some time to acquire strategic depth with India and further sharpen its maritime capabilities. Virus-hit badly, it had, with US encouragement, spearheaded a petition for a neutral, global investigation into Covid-19’s origins and China’s role in it. China, which now sees both India and Australia as US stooges in the region, immediately hit back, imposing an 80 per cent tariff on Australian barley and banning beef imports. Ever since, Australia has been looking to find allies where it can diversify markets and find support. One of the results was the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, agreed upon by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on June 4, 2020. The military exercises seem to be a corollary of this understanding.
With this consolidation, Beijing could have a tough time monitoring the entire South China Sea, which it claims as its own. Its intention is to encircle the region, particularly India, with a “string of pearls” or islands friendly to it and keep a hawkish overlordship of the littoral States. India, which has realised that China won’t budge on Ladakh, is now seriously considering getting down to “a poke for a poke” strategy. It is now firming up more military pacts, like the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA) with the US during the 2+2 dialogue between the Defence and Foreign Ministers of the two countries later this month. This will amplify India’s maritime vigilance capabilities significantly. The US can share advanced satellite and topographical data for long-range navigation and missile-targeting with India. We can now use US unmanned aerial vehicles for reconnaissance. Besides, after years, India is also keen on formal trade negotiations with Taiwan. This is tricky territory as India would have to sidestep issues that China might raise regarding bilateral trade agreements and pledges made under fair practices. India doesn’t formally recognise Taiwan, with the two Governments maintaining unofficial diplomatic missions. But a trade pact, if it does materialise bypassing Chinese resistance, would help us reduce our supply chain dependency and attract massive investments. Galwan may have been the trigger that China has wrongly pressed. For it has forced India to develop its own protective “ring of fire” in the region.
With no face-to-face discussion taking place between the two nations, a grand bargain cannot be expected in the near future
In the absence of a face-to-face meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, likely due to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS summits at Moscow going virtual, it is External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, who is talking to China through interactions with think tanks and media over his book, The India Way, completed before the current standoff in east Ladakh.
The last and only high-level face-to-face meeting was at Moscow on September 10 between Jaishankar and his counterpart, Wang Yi, which sealed the stalemate along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) on troop withdrawals with a standstill agreement following India’s pre-emptive occupation of seven Chushul heights on the Kailash range that rattled the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The eighth round of Military Commander’s talks, which have become military-diplomatic with the inclusion of Foreign Ministry mandarins from both sides, expected next week, is unlikely to revive the comatose Disengagement and De-escalation Process (DDP) that has created buffer zones and prevented Indian forces from patrolling up to their claimed LAC. The PLA has unilaterally promulgated its 1959 claim line, annexing 1,000 sq km through multiple intrusions in April and May which India, in denial, has not acknowledged. The Chinese negotiators have creatively avoided the use of acronyms like LAC (instead use “border areas”) and the Restoration of Status Quo Ante (RSQA) (instead use “permanent disengagement”). Six months on, both sides are hunkering down for a harsh winter with China smiling.
So what precisely is Jaishankar telling China? First, that the peace and tranquillity in border areas have been deeply disturbed by the deployment of 50,000 Chinese troops on the LAC, which is a critical security challenge. Second, the strategic framework and security protocols crafted for peace and tranquility since the 1980s are no longer working. Third, the tragic Galwan clash and firing shots in the air occurred for the first time in 45 years. Fourth, India is not asking for resolution of the complex boundary question but only a peaceful border, which is a pre-requisite for normal bilateral relations. Fifth, India doesn’t have a reasonable explanation for the change in Chinese behaviour even after two informal summits. These are extremely reasonable urgings, even conceding concessions to China, as expediting the boundary question was always upfront. Collectively, this message reflects India’s faith in dialogue and diplomacy despite Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Bipin Rawat’s threat — accompanied with a fusillade of missile tests — of military option if diplomacy failed.
Let’s be clear, war was never on the table. Neither side wants conflict, especially China, which has got what it had sought by cheating, through unarmed combat and firing shots in the air. The Chinese statement on complete disengagement at friction points (PLA intrusions) and need for early de-escalation (Moscow declaration) are mere words unlikely to be translated into deeds so that as both sides acknowledge, “differences do not become disputes.” But the LAC and border areas are already disputed. Beijing has said that the root cause of tension is India building infrastructure in disputed areas and making Ladakh a Union Territory, when another reason is the loss of face at Doklam, where Indian soldiers prevented PLA from constructing a road through a disputed area. New Delhi has rejected Chinese statements on non-recognition of Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh with assertions that both are integral parts of its territory.
Another issue Jaishankar revealed is about a recent Chinese confidential proposal, which has been considered by the China Study Group. Kite flyers advocate de-escalation taking priority over disengagement before the onset of winter. China wants both sides to withdraw tanks and artillery, which will deprive India of terrain and equipment advantage for mechanised warfare, especially around the critical Depsang plains area where PLA has made its deepest intrusion, opposite the strategic Daulat Beg Oldie airbase and garrison, which China views as a launchpad against Aksai Chin. An additional reason for not withdrawing is the difficulty in bringing back tanks and guns over snow-covered passes. With trust completely shattered by PLA breaking existing protocols, no Indian commander will risk forfeiting a battlefield asset unless de-escalation is inclusive of “complete and full disengagement” amounting to RSQA. Tanks and guns at above 15,000 ft at minus 40 degrees centigrade in winter make for a mad first.
With Bihar elections around the corner, the game of denial and bragging by the Government over LAC has started. Home Minister Amit Shah, the trigger for the stand-off, is claiming no one can snatch an inch of land when large swathes have already been snatched. Wonder what Modi, who cleared China of any perfidy, will say during the election campaign.
The American onslaught against China, led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is gaining momentum in sync with Donald Trump’s election campaign. Pompeo and his team have called China all sorts of names and accused it of bad behaviour. The US National Security Advisor, Robert O’Brien, has said talks and agreements will not work to change Chinese behaviour.
Meanwhile, China is on a high alert on multiple fronts with all its five theatre commands in a state of war readiness. Jinping visited the Marine Corps that he set up on taking over as the Commander-in-Chief. The second face-to-face ministerial meeting of Quad was held in Tokyo this month and while Pompeo called China aggressor, Jaishankar steered clear of taking any position of alignment. The US-India 2+2, the third ministerial dialogue, will start next week in New Delhi, when India will sign the fourth and final foundational agreement — Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) — which is about geospatial information on employing armed drones (to be procured from the US) and Cruise and Ballistic missiles. BECA will deepen interoperability and facilitate access to US defence technology. India’s decisions on BECA and finally including Australia, after 13 years, in the Malabar naval drill, which includes the US and Japan, indicate that strategic choices are being made and risks being taken in ensuring strategic autonomy does not turn into strategic ambiguity — a Jaishankar prescription. On the other hand, Wang has already reacted to Quad and its likely militarisation. Initially, he called it “bubble and foam and nothing more” and is now calling it “Indo-Pacific NATO” from Asian NATO earlier. For China, the expanded Malabar exercise is a critical step India has taken in confirming Chinese suspicion that India has become a US ally.
That the occupation of Chushul heights and expansion of Malabar let India negotiate from a position of strength is wishful thinking. On the LAC, India is alone. Any Chinese proposal on de-escalation without disengagement amounting to RSQA will be unacceptable. With only virtual summits on the calendar, no grand bargain can be expected even as soldiers battle for survival in snow deserts.
(The writer, a retired Major General, was Commander IPKF South, Sri Lanka and founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the Integrated Defence Staff)
The National Testing Agency (NTA) recently declared a topper as failed in NEET 2020 result. The student named Mridul Rawat, who failed the NEET 2020 as per the first marksheet issued by NTA, actually emerged as an All India Topper in the ST category.
Mridul then challenged the result declared by the NTA and after rechecking of the OMR sheet and Answer Key, it was found that he is an All India Topper in ST category.
The 17-year-old Rawat is a resident of Gangapur town of Sawai Madhopur district in Rajasthan. On October 16, when the NTA had declared the result, it gave Mridul 329 points in 720. But after rechecking it was found that Mridul has obtained 650 out of 720 marks.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCePT7u2rtC-Tp0LGBkMqcAw
India has made major progress in delivering energy efficiency. It has done better than China, the US, Russia and many European nations
The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7.1 aims to ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services by 2030. India’s journey so far has been remarkable in achieving near-universal access to electricity in the last one decade. As per the “Saubhagya” dashboard, 99.9 per cent of rural households in the country have been electrified and less than 20,000 homes lacked electricity access as of March 2019, but as per NSS-76, more than six per cent households in rural areas and one per cent in urban areas had no access to electricity till December 2018.
A majority of the States have above 97 per cent access, but larger States such as Uttar Pradesh (UP), Jharkhand and Odisha still lag behind the national average. Rural areas of UP and Jharkhand are most deprived with 80 and 85 per cent access to electricity respectively.
According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS)-4, in 2015-16, Bihar ranked at the bottom of all States with just 60 per cent of its households having access to power. Since then, it has made significant progress in expanding its electricity access to near-universal coverage in the last three years. But despite attaining near-universal electrification for the majority of States, securing continuous and quality supply of power to remote villages and poorest households still remains a big concern.
Compared to electricity access, larger variations can be observed in the access to clean fuel among the States. Meghalaya, West Bengal, and Empowered Action Group (EAG) States, excluding Uttarakhand, still lag in providing universal access to clean cooking fuels, and every second household has no access to it. This significantly low national average poses a core developmental and health challenge. Even Kerala, despite its high living standards, has witnessed glaringly low progress in this aspect. Also, as per NSS-76, there exists a blatant, countrywide rural-urban divide in the access to clean fuel.
On average, the beneficiaries of the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) go for only 3.1 LPG cylinder refills in a year. For the year 2019-2020, around 4.14 crore families never opted for a refill of more than three cylinders. Madhya Pradesh, UP and Rajasthan fared the worst in this regard. According to the information given in the Rajya Sabha recently, since the beginning of the new financial year in April till August, around 1.84 crore families refilled their LPG cylinders only once. This information came in even as the Government claimed of providing free cylinders to the poor during the lockdown. Hence, the challenge further remains to not only increase the access to cleaner fuels for households, but to increase the overall consumption per family.
Energy production of all types contributes to about 70 per cent of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions across the globe. Energy-related CO2 emissions grew 1.7 per cent in 2018 to reach a historic high of 33.1 gigatons of CO2 globally. It was the highest rate of growth since 2013, and 70 per cent higher than the average increase since 2010. However, the global energy demand in the first quarter of this year declined by 3.8 per cent relative to the first quarter of 2019, resulting in five per cent lower CO2 emissions as well. But this seemingly desirable change, that was mainly caused by the national lockdowns, may not continue for more than a few months.
To sustainably move towards a better future, it is now essential that we cope with our energy needs, giving due consideration to the environment that has been long neglected and continues to be so. The energy transition from conventional to renewable sources is the biggest need of the hour. Owing to this, SDG target 7.2 aims to increase the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix by 2030.
Among the BRICS nations, Brazil has been leading the way in the share of renewable power in its total energy mix, drawing advantage from its high potential of electricity production from wind and solar energy sources. India’s share of renewable energy in its final energy consumption stands at 32.2 per cent as of 2017 and has been suffering a decline for the last many years. Even though India’s share of renewable energy is higher than countries like Russia, the US, China, Japan and Europe, the decline in this share must be controlled. Whereas for countries mentioned above, in order to be able to sustain the share of renewables in their total energy mix, intense efforts for increasing that share must be realised too.
The Energy Statistics 2020 has reported a substantial growth in the renewable energy share in the total installed electricity generation from 13.4 per cent (2015-2016) to 17.7 per cent (2017-2018), owing to significant investments and expansions made in wind and solar power generation. A recent International Energy Agency analysis shows that in 2018, India’s investment in solar energy was greater than in all fossil fuel sources of electricity generation put together. SDG- 7.3 aims to double the global rate of energy efficiency by 2030. Energy intensity indicates the amount of energy needed to produce one unit of the GDP, where a smaller value is always desirable, as it points towards greater energy efficiency.
India has made significant progress in delivering energy efficiency. It has done better than major economies, namely China, the US, Russia and several European countries. It has showcased exemplary performance on this front and achieved an energy intensity level of 4.1 to 5.1 megajoules per US dollar (MJ/$) that is even lower than the global average of 5.4 MJ/$. Energy efficiency and increasing share of renewables are fundamental in achieving several other sustainable development goals. Without accelerated clean energy innovation and transition towards renewables, the 2030 agenda seems far-fetched.
As the nation faces the grim economic impact of the pandemic, energy efficiency offers several opportunities to provide the much-needed boost to the economy in the form of employment generation and so on, although a great deal of uncertainty exists with regard to SDG-7.
(The writers are researchers, International Institute for Population) Sciences, Mumbai)
The Govt must take proactive steps to reform Indian agriculture to help production cross 500 million MT in the next two to three years
These days farmers across the country are agitating against the three farm Acts passed by the Government recently. If we analyse the status of agriculture today, we find that the sector is in dire need of innovation, both at the policy and ground level. Unless the Government deals with the real issues facing the farming community, nothing substantial will be achieved by simply reforming the existing structure that governs the sale and marketing of farm produce. Government officials and many in the public space think that the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) is doing a great job in declaring the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for a range of items like millet, pulses, oilseeds and so on, other than wheat and rice. However, the fact is that only six per cent of the farmers and only `2.5 lakh crore out of the `40 lakh crore total output from agriculture are covered by the MSP. From the point of view of food security, the MSP is an important intervention as it provides some financial security to the farmers and price stability to the consumers.
The main cause for concern is how to make farming profitable for the small and marginal growers who constitute 86 per cent of the farming community. They are neither able to invest in technology, better seeds and other inputs, nor in infrastructure. Most of them are at the mercy of the rain god who is now playing truant with them due to climate change, coupled with price instability and indebtedness. The rich farmers are able to manage somehow, but the poor get further indebted and trapped in bad loans.
Yet another problem is the reluctance of the younger generation to carry on subsistence farming. The Government must launch a climate adaptation site-specific programme for tackling the hydrology of the area to retain soil moisture. Increasing productivity is the only way we can double the farmers’ income. Take for example China. In 2010, it produced 500 million metric tonnes (MT) of grain from 143 million ha of net sown area. In India that year, this was only 240 million MT with the same sown area. Now with 140 million ha in 2020, we have inched closer to 300 million MT. Though the contribution of the farm sector in the GDP is around 17 per cent, it supports the livelihood of 58 per cent of the workforce of India. The Gross Value Added (GVA) by agriculture, forestry and fishing was estimated at `19.48 lakh crore in the current financial year (FY). The growth in GVA in agriculture and allied sectors stood at four per cent in the FY 2020-21. If the country wants to become a $5 trillion economy, we must lift the annual growth rate of agriculture by at least eight to 10 per cent in the next few years and then aim for more. This will require a concrete action plan.
As a first step, there should be planned networking to integrate land use with the adjoining forests through the creation of water bodies and implementation of watershed management schemes. This will help tackle climatic vagaries. The next approach is to opt for high value crop diversity for better production so that the return per unit of land used is enhanced. The farmers would require value addition and friendly market support. Though the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committees (APMCs) can no longer control the farmers, they can still be used for better procurement through the MSP and can become competitive with reforms in their functioning, specially by creating more facilities for the farmers in the context of the changed circumstances.
The Government should promote consortiums of investors and farmers while the small and marginal farmers should form cooperatives for negotiating with the sponsors for undertaking contract farming. In this venture, the APMC’s Mandi Samitis could also chip in to provide infrastructure and help. These cooperatives can create infrastructure and inputs for increasing productivity and help small farmers improve soil conditions and mitigate water scarcity through water harvesting. This will sort out the two major constraints in increasing production. Yet another help farmers need is to mitigate weather-related risks and for this, crop insurance policies must be made farmer-friendly. What do we do about the deteriorating soil health due to the overuse of pesticides and fertilisers? We must push for sustainable farming and the Centre and States must provide assistance to organic farming and conservation agriculture. As per the Compound Annual Growth Rate, the organic food segment is likely to grow from `2,700 crore in 2015 to `75,000 crore in 2025.
The Government must take proactive steps to reform Indian agriculture to help production cross 500 million MT in the next two to three years. Only then can the farmers’ income be doubled. The first thing to do is to open the door to agitating farmers. After all, it is they who have been feeding the nation.
(The writer is a former civil servant)
By calling a Dalit woman candidate an ‘item’, Kamal Nath may have cost the Congress its chances in the MP bypolls
It has been less than a month that the Hathras gang-rape and murder of a Dalit woman got the nation’s sympathy. But in the absence of any action, the atrocities against her kind continue across the country, the latest incident reported from Kanpur Dehat in Uttar Pradesh on Sunday. A Dalit woman was allegedly raped at gunpoint by two men, including a former village head. On the same day, former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister and senior Congress leader Kamal Nath belittled the BJP’s Dalit woman candidate, Imarti Devi, as an “item” at a rally ahead of the byelections in the State. Courtesy Bollywood, the word has a pejorative intent when used with respect to women. And when a leading politician, no less somebody of Nath’s standing, chooses to be politically incorrect and brash at a mass rally, it undoubtedly legitimises the exploitative mindset of the village headman or upper caste men in the hinterland. Nath may claim the morning after that he didn’t name anybody but considering that he was addressing voters in Devi’s constituency, is there any doubt about whom the barb was intended against? Public statements such as these endorse the feudal male’s predatory behaviour and expose the already disempowered Dalit women to further tyranny. Which is why beyond sympathy, there is no redress or a felt anger that translates into political will, agenda or action to stop their abuse once and for all. Nath may not be the only politician to have made misogynistic statements against women but that doesn’t excuse his latest gaffe, no matter how bitter his animosity with Devi may be politically. If he gets away without repercussions, then there’s a lot that’s wrong with not just the system but collective conscience. He was expected to be particularly attentive, considering he was addressing a rally just a fortnight ahead of the State’s bypolls, crucial to his and the Congress’ recovery in the State post the revolt of Jyotiraditya Scindia and the 22 MLAs that he took away with him to the BJP. Clearly, all he has done is score a self-goal by gifting the BJP an issue on a platter, which has lodged a complaint with the Election Commission for “making derogatory remarks against a Scheduled Caste candidate.” He is now being called out as being anti-Dalit and anti-woman, both constituencies his party depends upon. Besides, he should have been careful, considering that the Gandhi scions, Rahul and Priyanka, made Hathras central to their bounce-back into political relevance. They braved police barricades and an oppressive UP administration to meet the girls’ family and commiserate with them. The seasoned and mature politician that he is, surely Nath doesn’t need any coaching in handling political sensitivities at this time. One certainly didn’t expect him to be either intemperate or indiscreet in a manner that would cost him politically. It has clearly put the Congress on the backfoot, both at the State level and nationally.
Nath has an axe to grind with Devi, who is a Jyotiraditya loyalist and defected with him to the BJP. In fact, the sexist remark comes days after and probably as a hitback to Devi’s accusation that Nath bribed MLAs when he was Chief Minister, that he gave cash doles of Rs 5 lakh to Congress MLAs who could not be granted ministerial posts. About 28 Assembly seats are at stake in the bypolls, a sizeable number for Nath to bet his chances on. That seems to be a tall order now. Devi is now playing up the wrongs done against her, asking if she should be denied a political role simply because she is poor, a Scheduled Caste and a woman? She even maintained that Nath had a consistent bias against her, ignoring her at party meetings, slighting her, refusing to give her a decent hearing. And then she fired the most potent salvo, asking if he would behave like this with Priyanka Gandhi. Clearly, Nath has slid on his own sludge. His nemesis Jyotiraditya, too, has joined issue, fasting with Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan for two hours, demanding that Nath be stopped from campaigning. This distasteful remark has robbed Nath of the moral pitch that he had woven his campaign on, as a vote against “Congress rebels”, who he said had disrespected the people’s mandate and crossed over to the BJP, selling out the party. Instead, he is now at the receiving end for betraying the Dalit cause. The BJP currently has 107 MLAs and the Congress 88. There are four Independents, two Samajwadi Party (SP) and one Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) MLA. The Central party effectively has to win single digit seats to retain power. But Chouhan, who is battling challengers from within his own party and the discomfort of having to create space for a demanding Jyotiraditya, would ideally like to get at least two digits on the tally to retain his chair. The Congress would need to win all 28 seats to make it to 116, the half-way mark, a near-impossible task. It needs 20 plus seats to stitch up a coalition but with BJP waiting in the wings with resources to lure away the smaller parties in a prestige fight, that plan, too, is not quite within the realm of possibility now. Besides with most of the seats going to the bypolls being located in the Gwalior-Chambal region, which has the highest numbers of caste atrocities and violence and where the Dalit vote swing matters politically, Devi’s victimhood could prove to be crucial. Dalit supremo Mayawati has fielded her candidates in all seats. As far as Nath is considered, the bypolls are his last chance to take another shot at chief ministership. But by scorning a woman legislator, he may have just scripted his own downfall.
The Supreme Court judgment on the petitions pertaining to the three-month anti-CAA protests will restore some order in the way we express dissent
The recent judgement of the Supreme Court on the petitions pertaining to the three-month protests, held in Shaheen Bagh in South Delhi earlier this year, should clear the air in respect of the prevailing debate on how far one can go while exercising the right to dissent. The key point is that the occupation of public thoroughfares while registering a protest is not acceptable indefinitely.
This judgement will have long-term implications on how political battles will henceforth be fought when they spill out onto the streets, because if the right to protest is an untrammelled right, the constitutional scheme could get disturbed.
The judgement of the three-judge Bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, said that Article 19 was one of the cornerstones of the Constitution which conferred two treasured rights on citizens — the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b). “These rights, in cohesion, enable every citizen to assemble peacefully and protest against the actions or inactions of the State. The same must be respected and encouraged by the State, for the strength of a democracy such as ours lies in the same.” However, it noted that these rights were subject to reasonable restrictions. Referring to an earlier judgement of the court, it said, “each fundamental right, be it of an individual or of a class, does not exist in isolation and has to be balanced with every other contrasting right. It was in this respect, that in this case, an attempt was made by us to reach a solution where the rights of protesters were to be balanced with that of commuters”.
The court declared that democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone. “The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area, but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.” The blockade had resulted in the closure of the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, including the Okhla underpass, from December 15, 2019, onwards.
The central argument of those who objected to the Shaheen Bagh protest, including Dr Nand Kishore Garg, who petitioned the court, was that the protesters had blocked an important thoroughfare and caused enormous inconvenience to commuters. The right to protest should not result in the infringement of the right to free movement of other citizens. Dwelling on this issue, the court said: “We have, thus, no hesitation in concluding that such kind of occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests, is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions.”
The court recalled the history of protest during the freedom movement. It said: “What must be kept in mind, however, is that the erstwhile mode and manner of dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled democracy. Our constitutional scheme comes with the right to protest and express dissent but with an obligation towards certain duties.” This is a significant observation by the apex court. In fact, Dr BR Ambedkar, who headed the Constitution Drafting Committee, dwelt on this very issue in his concluding remarks in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, before the Assembly put its final stamp of approval on the Constitution.
In that speech, Dr Ambedkar made two observations, which are very relevant to the present debate on democracy and dissent in the country. He said: “The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party.” The communists do not like it because they want a Constitution based on the principle of dictatorship of the proletariat. “They (the communists) condemn the Constitution because it is based on parliamentary democracy.” The Socialists want to nationalise all private property without payment of compensation. Second, they want fundamental rights in the Constitution to be absolute and without any limitations, “so that if their party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered freedom not merely to criticise, but also to overthrow the State”.
Just substitute the Congress party for the Socialist Party and it will appear as if Dr Ambedkar is talking about what is happening in India in the year 2020 where political parties, which have been rejected by the electorate, want to foment trouble on the streets to disturb the democratic process. Let us not forget that the Congress party’s vote share has crashed to less than 20 per cent and the vote share of the two communist parties has hit rock bottom and touched a low of 2.50 per cent.
The second aspect Dr Ambedkar highlighted relates to the modes of protest. He told the citizens what they must do if they wish to maintain democracy not merely in form but also in fact. The first thing we must do is to hold fast to the constitutional methods to achieve our social and economic objectives. “It means we must abandon bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha.” These methods were okay when there were no constitutional methods of protest. “But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the grammar of anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.”
The Shaheen Bagh mode of protest falls into the category mentioned by Dr Ambedkar — organising a blockade to prevent people from using an important public thoroughfare and disrupting normal life. And let there be no confusion about the primary intent of those who promoted this “grammar of anarchy” — their dissatisfaction with the peoples’ verdict of 2014 and 2019 — more than anything else, and their desire to unsettle a duly elected Government. The objections to the Citizenship Amendment Act were just a façade.
Instead of promoting such chaos for several months, it would have been better for the protesters to move the Supreme Court against the law made by the Parliament. That would be the appropriate constitutional response that would have passed muster with Dr Ambedkar.
Hopefully, the apex court’s judgement should put an end to the Shaheen Bagh mode of protests and restore some order in the way we express dissent.
(The writer is an author specialising in democracy studies. Views expressed are personal)
Nationalism, sans some of its ill-effects, has constructive potential to emerge as a powerful push for policy actions and reforms
The concept of “nudge”, presented by Nobel laureate Richard Thaler, is a relatively subtle policy shift that encourages people to make a decision. It is about making it easier for citizens to make a certain choice in their broad self-interest. It is interesting to see how Thaler’s novel change-management concept is being taken forward at such a mega scale in public life in India. That nationalism could be a tool to nudge people for a targetted behavioural pattern is a fresh and interesting revelation. Leveraging it as an influencing tool in policy-making and wider political action is unique. The idea of nationalism in recent times has received traction with a strong intent for mass persuasion and influence in matters of governance and political action. Demonetisation was defended as “action against the nation’s looters.” The Make in India, Digital India, Start-Up India, Stand-Up India schemes were conceived to unlock India’s entrepreneurial potential. An economic reform like the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was sold as “one nation, one tax, one market.” The power sector reforms typified “one nation, one grid (now, water and gas grid have been added).” The payment system is described as “one nation, one card,” while tracking vehicles through a unified command has been touted as “one nation, one tag.” All of these have been espoused with an overt tinge of nationalism. The fervour was even higher in hailing the abrogation of Article 370 as establishing “one country, one Constitution.” The logic advancing the nationalistic line runs like this: For population control, we need to nudge people to opt for a small family. Those opting for fewer children need to be honoured. Choosing to restrict the size of families is an expression of love for the nation. Family planning is thus clearly linked to nation-building. Then, for achieving a $5 trillion economy, we need investment, particularly the private kind. Nudging the active participation of the private sector and corporates is seen as a must. If wealth is not created, it will not be distributed and by extension the poor cannot benefit. So corporates are our nation’s wealth creators. They should be given pride of place. For reviving demand, consumption and creating jobs, we need to support local businesses and industry. So urging people to buy and promote local products, to be “vocal for local” is the need of the hour. This is also the time to boycott foreign (read Chinese) goods. Thus, the clarion call is “Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India).”
For advancing the proposal of simultaneous elections, we need to nudge the Election Commission, political parties, agents and voters to appreciate the disadvantages of frequent elections that are draining the scarce resources of the nation. Hence, the need for “one nation, one election.” Nationalistic thoughts, phrases and slogans, advanced in the public domain, generally act as an effective nudge to achieve consensus or influence people to rally around the narrative of the State. Nationalism, with its different reflections in nomenclatures such as India, Bharat, Motherland and New India, gives a meaning and relevance to our identity and roots. With an attendant sense of pride, nationalism is seen playing a major part in determination of behaviour, be it economic, social or political, both at an individual and group level. The traction of Atmanirbhar Bharat is the latest example.
There are, of course, some questions in popular debate. Whether nationalism with its big overriding sweep clouds judgment and restricts human choices? Whether it works better for bigger goals only, like national security, sovereignty and so on? Whether nationalism compels people to see everything in terms of competitive prestige? The counter questions posed are many, too. Whether the debate on the negative side of nationalism suffers from prejudices? Whether the dark side is overhyped and exaggerated in India? Whether the debate to undermine, underrate or undervalue the constructive impact of nationalism is driven by political agenda? Surely, we need to guard against the negative effects of hyper-nationalism. Yet, blatantly undervaluing or negating nationalism and its utility seem unfair, too. Between the two extremes, a new approach can be thought through. Given the impact it has in India, nationalism can be pressed as a healthy and powerful tool to enable it to act as a nudge for overall progress.
However, some imaginative tweaks would be needed to be embedded in institutions to mitigate the debated side-effects of nationalism. For a civic nationalism to emerge, without any bias of exclusion and discrimination, our public institutions — social and political — need to introspect and revamp themselves. By nurturing a climate of tolerance, debate and reasoning in all their engagements, they can help foster a healthy nationalistic spirit needed to act as a powerful nudge to achieve national goals. High impact policy actions for economic growth, social progress and 21st Century “aspirational India” require public support, broad consensus and positive energy. Nationalism, with its constructive potential, can surely be pitched to deliver.
(The writer is a former bank executive and writes on education, learning and spirituality)
The Quad can play a pivotal role in curbing China’s aggression in the strategic Indo-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region, which is regarded as India’s backyard
The Coronavirus pandemic has provided a unique opportunity for the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD), also known as the Quad, and its participating countries, namely the US, India, Australia and Japan, to contain China in the Indo-Pacific and neutralise the threat emanating from it. But there are several caveats. It still is not as strong-willed as a cohesive force that can change global geopolitics. Yet, now is the time.
History is replete with oppressors, especially in the context of nation states. It was the Roman Empire in the first century, later it was the Umayyad Caliphate in the early 10th century, Germany and the USSR in the modern age and so on. In the 21st century, China is one such oppressor. Even as the world grapples with the Corona outbreak, which has wreaked havoc across the globe, obliterating economies, putting people out of jobs and pushing health systems of countries to the brink, China is continuing its expansionist campaigns unabated. Beijing has not only been responsible for land grabs in Nepal, but has, through its quintessential “debt trap diplomacy”, reduced India’s allies in the South Asian region, be it Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh and to some extent Afghanistan, to being its serfs.
Chinese bellicosity is a headache for the world already sickened by the contagion. In recent months, China has picked fights with a large number of nations, be it India in South Asia, Taiwan, the US in the Atlantic or its Southeast and East Asian neighbours. Chinese President Xi Jingping is determined to resurrect the glory of the “Middle Kingdom” of the fifth century. With this aim in mind, China is responsible for altering the very nature of the rules-based Westphalian international order as it existed despite all its shortcomings or fallacies. At a time when the dragon nation should join hands with the rest of the world in combating a pandemic, which it interestingly unleashed, it is instead trying to browbeat nation states into submission.
Mohammed Ayoob, distinguished Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University, had noted that it is inherent in the nature of a ruling regime to resort to nationalism and bolster its legitimacy at home. This seems to be China’s case and Xi’s imperialistic designs are emerging as a headache for the world.
Quad, the solid answer: Captain Alfred Mahan, one of the world’s foremost naval strategists, said, “Sea power is the key to building an empire.” The Quad is the answer to China’s belligerence. A coalition of democracies, the Quad developed in 2004 as the navies of India, the US, Japan and Australia collaborated. It was revived in 2007 at the insistence of the then Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe but gradually fizzled out only to re-emerge in 2017 under the ambitious Indian vision of SAGAR (Security and Assistance for All in The Region), an idea pioneered by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The recent foreign ministers’ meeting held in Tokyo, Japan, is regarded as a landmark moment in the evolution of the Quad grouping, as it paved the way for the signing of a new cyber security agreement between India and Japan. This pact seeks to protect not only each other’s military communication systems but to bolster the cyber warfare capacity of the allies.
It perhaps needs to be followed by the signing of such similar agreements between India and other allies in the Quad and Quad+ areas, which will be a good deterrent vis-à-vis China’s cyberspace offensive capabilities. The Quad can play a pivotal role in curbing China’s aggression in the strategic Indo-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region (IOR), which is regarded as India’s backyard. It can not only contain the expansionist designs of China but can force it to mend its recalcitrant behaviour.
Pressing concerns remain: Before emerging as the answer to China’s irredentist claims, the Quadrilateral grouping must first get its own house in order. There remain several shortcomings and loopholes that need to be dealt with before it can “securitise” the Indian Ocean and broader Indo-Pacific region.
Mere lip service will not pay dividends if the trajectory of the Quad grouping is noted. Its members have mostly given lip service to the formalisation of this new alliance of military democracies. During the recent foreign ministers’ meeting of the group held in Tokyo, the four countries issued separate statements and only the US had the gumption to call out China for its illegal designs. Sadly and disappointingly, the rest of the members simply beat around the bush, trying to avoid a head-on conflict with the dragon.
The first thing that needs to be done is to stop wasting time and publicly name and call out the Chinese regime. Second, India’s extreme reluctance is coming in the way of upgrading the security grouping. New Delhi has refused to upgrade the talks among the Quad nations from the foreign secretaries level to that of the heads of the States. Further, India’s recent decision that it will never be a part of any military alliance signals that the very idea of the Quad as a grouping of developed democracies with a military dimension is doomed to remain divided for the foreseeable future. Third, the Quad countries must upgrade the grouping to a full-fledged military alliance. Beijing must remain in no doubt that the Quad seeks to curb its growth and seeks to clip its imperialist wings. It must indeed live up to its reputation of being Asia’s NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation).
Fourth, four countries alone cannot contain the ambitions of the dragon. Hence, it is imperative that the Quad is expanded to include new members such as Vietnam, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan and so on to force the Chinese regime to recognise the might of democracies and dial down its rhetoric.
Fifth, the Quad and the Quad+ members must jettison their liberal outlook of the current world order and must embrace, according to the Samuel P Huntington concept, a “Clash of Civilisations”-led realist world order.
Although New Delhi has adopted a pragmatic foreign policy outlook, other countries like Australia, South Korea and Indonesia are still carrying the misplaced notion of a Nehruvian-era liberal world order, which has no place in a world dominated by great power competition.
Sixth, economic decoupling is highly important but in a globalised world, it is easier said than done. However, a number of measures can be taken to economically punish China. One such step can be establishing a Quad Free Trade Agreement (FTA) to attract companies to invest in large sums in the Quad and its allies to bolster not only the efficiency of the grouping but also keep the global supply chain intact so that it is the liberal democracies that can call the shots in trade.
Finally, the newly-propounded vision of “Atmanirbharta” or economic autarky envisaged by the Prime Minister must not become a recipient of shunning globalisation and allies alike. It must not follow the painful and thoughtless import substitution principle followed in trade by the Nehru regime. The Government must be mindful of forging economic alliances, while at the same time balance the needs and requirements of “Atmanirbharta.”
What is required in this context is that India must become an export-oriented powerhouse. India constitutes just 1.7 per cent of the global export basket. Hence there is a dire need to raise that share, which in the long run will not only increase the country’s per capita income but will help in bridging the mammoth lacuna of inequality of wealth prevalent in Indian society. It will help in making India achieve its cherished idea of “Pax Indica,” which it wished to get for so long. Lastly, as Carl Von Clausewitz, a Prussian General said: “There are cases in which the greatest daring is the greatest wisdom.”
The pandemic provides a unique opportunity to make a new and robust alliance work. The Quad countries should concern themselves not only to military aspects but must also address chronic deficiencies which plague the international system. This alliance can hold the key towards developing a new prosperous and stable Indo-Pacific and world order.
(The writer is a columnist)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month