There is an urgent requirement to release the consumer expenditure survey data as soon as possible for new poverty estimates if actionable models are to be made
The reliability of official statistics systems and availability of macro-economic data have been widely debated in recent times. On many occasions, the absence of most recent and credible statistics has put the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government in a sticky situation. In particular, macro-economic indicators such as economic growth, job numbers and number of poor people were at the centre of discussions during the recently-concluded parliamentary elections. The re-elected NDA government has recognised the concern as its all-out efforts to address the issue of investment and employment have ended with disappointing results. As India’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) estimate for the first quarter of the financial year 2018-19 has been recorded at 5.8 per cent, it happens to be the lowest growth rate in the past five financial years. On the other hand, the annual report of the Period Labour Force Survey (PLFS) showed that the unemployment rate was highest in the country at 6.1 per cent in 2017-18.
Just after resuming his second term in the office, Prime Minister Modi has constituted two high-level Cabinet committees to address economic challenges and the low growth spurt. He also held a meeting on June 22 with leading economists to review the macro-economic situation of the country and to deliberate upon the economic policy roadmap for boosting growth and generating employment.
The provision of monetary benefits to the poor is another important issue as committed in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) manifesto. The Congress party had promised a minimum income guarantee to the poorest 20 per cent, while the BJP had outlined plans for pulling people out of poverty by promising proper housing for those living in mud huts or lacking shelter, and piped water connections to every village household by the next four to five years. The ruling party has also pledged to upgrade rural roads and improve connectivity between India’s villages and cities. The former Finance Minister of the NDA government, Arun Jaitley, stressed that the number of Indians who live in poverty would drop to below 15 per cent over the next three years and to a negligible level in the 10 years after that. However, all these promises have been made without any base value of the number of poor people or plan to identify poor families as beneficiaries.
In India, policy-makers and the government use various methods to estimate the number of poor in the country. Since Independence, the poverty line is based on the minimum level of consumption requirement to decide the eligibility criteria for those who can avail government welfare schemes. The identification of eligible families is crucial as the welfare schemes should only benefit the deserving while also ensuring that people in need should not be excluded. The latest poverty line is based on the Tendulkar Committee methodology that includes the poverty line basket of both food and non-food items, which was estimated at Rs 4,050 a month for a five-member household in rural areas and Rs 4,950 in urban areas for the year 2011-12. The committee estimated 21.9 per cent poor people (270 million) in the country from the consumer expenditure survey data collected by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in 2011-12. These estimates had faced many criticisms with the main complaint being that the line was too low. In response, a new committee chaired by C. Rangarajan was constituted in 2012 to recalculate the poverty line. The committee submitted its report in July 2014. According to it, the new poverty line was estimated at Rs 4,800 a month for a five-member household in rural areas and Rs 7,050 in urban areas for the year 2011-12. The revised estimate increased the poverty level in the country to 29.5 per cent and the number of poor people to 363 million. However, the revised estimate of the committee was not discussed much by the government and the Tendulkar poverty line is still in use to estimate the poverty in the country.
The NDA government had started using a new approach based on household level socio-economic and caste census (SECC) survey data collected in 2011 to identify beneficiaries for many welfare schemes such as the PM Ujjwala Yojna. The households are ranked in three stages in this approach as (i) households meeting exclusion criteria (like motorised vehicle, kisan credit card etc) are automatically excluded; (ii) households satisfying inclusion criteria are included (manual scavengers, households without shelter etc.) and (iii) the remaining households are identified through a seven-item binary scoring criteria using deprivation indicators like households with only one room, female-headed households with no adult male member between 16 to 69 years of age. Though there is no specific indicator (like income or consumption) available in SECC data that suggests a family is BPL, there is no single number that captures all of India’s poor. Rather, households are categorised according to multi-dimensional deprivation indicators like not having a proper roof.
This allows welfare schemes to be targetted for each of the inclusion criteria of deprivation indicators. But the SECC data had many serious drawbacks, like not factoring in updates year on year with people complaining that they were either left out in the survey or entrants falling under the margin in the years that passed by. Due to these problems, the government has changed its identification mechanism now.
This indicates that there is a serious gap in poverty estimates in the country, which is grossly neglected by both policy makers and government. Apart from some anecdotal evidence, only latest poverty estimates are provided by the 2018 global multi-dimensional poverty index (MPI) published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
The Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) noted that India had made remarkable progress in tackling poverty as its rate has reduced drastically from 55 per cent in 2005-06 to 28 per cent in 2015-16. However, India still had 364 million poor in 2015-16, the largest for any country, although it is down from 635 million in 2005-06. The MPI looks at how people are being left behind across three key dimensions — namely health, education and living standards — lacking such things as clean water, sanitation, adequate nutrition or primary education. However, the multi-dimensional approach always has many drawbacks as discussed earlier in the case of SECC data.
The outdated Tendulkar poverty estimates based on NSSO consumption survey for 2011-12 still remain the last measure of poverty, which is used as a benchmark for most welfare schemes and other fiscal transfers in the country.
Therefore, the consumer expenditure survey is not only a crucial database on which poverty is estimated but also the only database for estimating inequality. Unfortunately, unlike the employment-unemployment survey, there is not much discussion on availability of data as per the latest consumption expenditure survey of NSSO, which was completed last year, around July 2018. Without the availability of reliable database after 2011-12, the latest poverty estimates could not be done.
The re-elected Modi government is planning to launch many new welfare programmes for the poor, which would be identified only from at least nine-year-old data. There is an urgent requirement to release the consumer expenditure survey data as soon as possible with new poverty estimates. This will not only help in policy-making but also provide a true picture of important poverty numbers and status of inequality in India.
(The writer is Fellow at the Institute for Human Development, Delhi)
Writer: Balwant Singh Mehta
Courtesy: The Pioneer
The US President has trained his trade guns on India. How this will end depends a lot on Modi’s diplomatic skills
As Narendra Modi took off on Air India 1 towards Japan, he could scarcely have imagined that while he was airborne, US President Donald Trump would make India the latest victim of his incessant tweeting. This, less than a day after his top diplomat came to India and said that trade is not a problem and India-US defence cooperation is top of the agenda for his government. But with Trump, nobody really knows what he is thinking and doing. He has truly upended global diplomacy and almost single-handedly kept the micro-blogging service Twitter relevant, blowing hot and cold. Trump is upset that India increased tariffs on 28 American imports soon after the US removed the benefits that Indian exporters received under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) impacting $5.5 billion of Indian exports. This is not the first time he has vocally complained about Indian tariffs; he has in the past complained about the extremely high import curbs India has for motorcycles, Harley-Davidson to be precise, but this is his first Twitter missive to India on trade.
India has upset the US on many fronts.The latter is angry we are purchasing the S400 Surface-To-Air missile defence system from Russia. Our e-commerce policies have been vehemently opposed by American retailing giant Walmart, now owner of Flipkart as well as Amazon. US financial services firms are upset with India’s data localisation norms and, of course, Americans have always been upset at the way Indian IT firms are “taking away jobs.” The US has, therefore, threatened to cut back the number of H-1B visas that India gets allotted. And while External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar made clear to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Delhi that India would take its own decisions with regard to the S400 purchase and Huawei equipment for India’s telecom networks, we are unwittingly playing a role in Trump’s increasingly angst-ridden issues with China. But at the same time, India is a vital part of the US’ strategy to contain China going forward. The Indo-US ties, despite the trade issues, have never been better, particularly militarily, and Trump and Modi appear to get along. Yet it will take extreme diplomatic caution to deal with the US President. Other countries, particularly China and Iran, have learnt not to second-guess him and hoping that a Democratic candidate will defeat him cannot be the central part of a strategy. Of course, Modi could learn golf, something that appears to have worked for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, but dealing with Trump on trade is not going to be easy.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
Increasing cases of mob lynchings indicate that either the BJP Government does not care or it has no control and has its hands tied. The latter is hard to believe
On June 18, Tabrez Ansari, a 24-year-old Muslim boy, was lynched by a mob in Jharkhand’s Kharsawan district on the suspicion of theft. This is the 11th case of hate crime in the six months of this year. In this week’s column, I will examine what the anatomy of hate crime is all about. I will attempt to raise some uncomfortable questions that need answers. Hopefully, they should press us to think afresh and take action.
What is hate crime? It can essentially be described as a type of behaviour that is spurned or motivated by hatred towards a particular group. Typical signs of hate crime are where victims are chosen because of their particular identity: Like race, religion, caste and sexual orientation among others. Furthermore, in the case of hate crime, usually, perpetrators have no direct relationship with the victims.
Let’s take a look at the circumstances under which the Jharkhand incident occurred. On June 18, Ansari was tied to a pole and was brutally beaten up for hours together before being handed over to the police. Horrific videos of the attack that have surfaced show that the mob forced Ansari to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ and ‘Jai Hanuman’ repeatedly. These are typical signs of hate crime. Apologists for the BJP Government in Jharkhand and at the Centre may argue that the mob was unlawfully beating up an alleged thief and that this does not mean that a particular community was targetted. To these apologists, I want to ask: What justifies the action of the mob to ask the victim to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ and ‘Jai Hanuman’? And is it mere coincidence that this lynching incident occurred when chants of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ were in focus in Parliament? Or that it happened in the same month when a person was thrown off a train because he refused to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram?’ The uncomfortable answer will be that in today’s ‘New India’, whosoever does not fall in the line with the BJP’s and RSS’s limited, macho view of “Hinduism,” will be dealt with by an unpredictable rule of the mob.
Who has created this environment for hate crime? In terms of numbers, the Government’s own data in 2017 published by the National Crimes Records Bureau (NCRB) showed that the number of offences promoting enmity on communal and racial lines went up by 41 per cent between 2014 (when Prime Minister Modi and the BJP were elected for the first time) and 2017. By the way, these numbers published by NCRB do not include incidents related to cow slaughter and those attacked on the suspicion of cow slaughter. If those figures were included, it would cause further embarrassment to the BJP and bring greater shame on us. Such numbers reach alarming proportions when there is an environment for its unabated growth.
One way in which such an environment is created is when there is a view that the perpetrators of such crimes can escape without punishment. Just take a look at the fact that most of these crimes are recorded on phones and thereafter widely circulated. In an interview with one such member of a mob, a reporter recounted how it is common to hear the perpetrators of such a crime video-tape their act because of the notoriety it brings and the “respect” it would gather in their circles. The video-taping of such incidents shows a brazen disregard or fear of repercussion. Another way in which this belief of being above the law is encouraged is when there are clear lapses by individuals in authority. Such people may be police officers or even doctors serving the Government.
In the case of Tabrez Ansari, a few hours after being brutally beaten, the police apparently recorded a “confession” from him. Amazingly, there was not a single line about the assault that he was subject to, even though the act was recorded by attackers on their mobile phones.
Further, it is shocking that the police could not use its skills of perception (or even plain sight) or training to figure out that Tabrez Ansari had been brutally beaten up. All of it does not stop here. There is also the case of the doctor who conducted the initial medical examination of Tabrez Ansari and found him to be “fit” to be thrown in the jail rather than a hospital. Such frightening degree of negligence treads dangerously on the thin red line between complicity and ignorance.
Some might say that these are subtle indicators and cannot be directly attributed to the BJP or the RSS. I mean it is not like a senior leader of the BJP (and a Union Minister) has garlanded the men accused of lynching a Muslim on the suspicion of cow slaughter or that an accused in a major terrorist attack (which resulted in the death of Muslims) was fielded as a Lok Sabha candidate and is currently a sitting Member of Parliament. Oops. That’s exactly what has happened.
Does the BJP not care or does it have no control? The statistics highlighted above, the brazen nature of crimes and the shameless manner in which these crimes have been captured on video as also repeatedly shared by the perpetrators of heinous crimes indicate one of the two things: Either the BJP Government does not care or it has no control and has its hands tied. It’s hard to believe that it has no control.
The fact is that the BJP and Prime Minister Modi were given a clear majority in 2014 and now in 2019, further, the majority of States where these crimes have occurred, are ruled by the party. Therefore, what is the excuse? Can the BJP explain why lynchings related to cow slaughter are currently not classified as hate crimes? Can it explain why, with a clear majority since 2014, no hate crime laws have been introduced where (as was proposed by the Congress in its manifesto) officers, who are found negligent in dealing with such crimes, are dealt with firmly? Can the party explain why Pragya Thakur, a terror accused and someone who claimed Nathuram Godse was a martyr, currently still sits as the BJP MP from Bhopal?
The Prime Minister’s response to the lynching incident has been predictable and standard. He condemned the act but it appears his condemnation does not hold much weight because such crimes are still happening. Even with Pragya Thakur, Prime Minister Modi said he would “never forgive” her for the remarks on Mahatma Gandhi.
My final question in this piece is really for all of us: If we, as politicians, journalists, actors, industrialists or as citizens don’t speak up against powers that have allowed such injustice to continue, are we harmless spectators or do we have to live with the guilt of being part of the problem?
(The author is president of Jharkhand Pradesh Congress Committee)
Writer: Ajoy Kumar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
The nation today is very different from what it was in 1991 or 2003. Societally, militarily, diplomatically and even morally, it is a very strong country
In a speech in January 1991, the then Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had invoked a popular idiomatic expression, exhorting his military and simultaneously warning the US against intervening in his invasion of Kuwait by threatening a “mother of all battles.” Hussein had under his command supposedly the world’s fourth largest Army with over a million and a half in uniform and reserves — a number larger than the US Army and Marine Corps combined. Iraqi forces were also battle veterans of the decade-long Iran-Iraq war and had displayed complex helicopter-borne assault-like commando capability in seizing the Kuwait Emir’s palace much before Iraqi armour columns rolled in. However, there were clear chinks in the Iraqi narrative beyond the presidential bravado. The sheer numbers of the Iraqi forces, who were subjected to an unchallenged pummelling of a 30-day air bombardment that broke the country’s infrastructure and spirit, are testimony. Ultimately, it took less than 100 hours of ground assault for the complete capitulation, destruction and humiliation of the Iraqi retreat from Kuwait. The Second Gulf War in 2003, entailing a more expanded mandate to oust Hussein, lasted only 21 days before the “end of major combat operations” was announced. However, the strategic aim of “containment” was not achieved in either of the Gulf Wars, yet the mainstream Americans believe in their ability to bulldoze any military opposition in the Middle East.
Today, Iran faces a potential military action from the US following the latest escalation of tensions with the shooting down of a $130 million worth ‘Global Hawk BAM-D’ surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz. The ratcheting of mutual distrust has been in the making for sometime, with the Iranians and their proxy forces holding sway in the multiple battles in the Iraqi-Syrian swathes, Yemen and Lebanon to even in the Iran-beholden, modern Iraq nation. The sectarian divide in the Middle East is increasingly tilting in favour of the numerically lesser Shia forces, much to the consternation of the US-supported Gulf sheikhdoms and Israel. The decimation of the Islamic State (IS) landmass and its conventional capabilities has shifted the US’ focus onto Iran in order to contain what it calls “the leading state sponsor of terror.” Towards the same, the US has unilaterally reneged on the path-breaking Iran nuclear deal and reinforced crippling economic sanctions, even though the international community remains a mute spectator despite the global nuclear watchdog organisation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), giving Iran a clean chit in abiding with the terms of the nuclear deal, which Trump accuses Iran of violating.
But Iran has not undertaken any military intervention as done by the US (all inconclusively) in the last 30 years in the Middle East. It has simply put a lot more challenges. First, unlike Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen or even Afghanistan — which were deeply divided and polarised societies from within — Iran is relatively homogenous and united in its animus towards the US aggression. Unsurprisingly, the US-led sanctions have had a “catastrophic humanitarian consequence” on the Iranian civil society and has had no support from any of the Iranian Opposition leadership, inside or outside of Iran.
This is starkly a different situation from Hussein’s Iraq which had well over 65 per cent of its population composed of persecuted Shias and Kurds, who were happy to see Hussein fall. Likewise, a theoretical US intervention in Syria may just be welcomed by the approximate 90 per cent of the Sunni population, who are ruled by the Shia-Alawite Assad Government.
Similarly, any action against the Shia-Hezbollah forces in Lebanon may be acceptable to other competing stakeholders like the Sunnis, Christians or Druze. Not so in Iran, which has over 90 per cent Shias. Even other minorities like the Kurds, Achomis, Turkmen (barring the Balouch) are also reasonably integrated into the Iranian society with no major discrimination. This puts a rock solid block of at least 110 million — 85 million in Iran and at least 25 million co-sectarian Shias in the contiguous western border with Iraq — in direct confrontation with the US. This is demographically an impregnable minefield for the US to potentially penetrate and try to hold ground. Thus, physical land occupation of Iranian soil is absolutely ruled out as can be seen from the parallel fate of the American military, in the face of rag-tag militias in Afghanistan. With 20 per cent of the global oil traded through the narrow Strait of Hormuz (24 miles wide at one point), Iran could pose unimaginable asymmetric threats to the US interests even if its considerable naval fleet of an estimated 15 submarines and anti-ship systems were to be neutralised.
Third, as the emotional flagbearer of Shias globally, Iran commands considerable clout and loyalty via its powerful proxies across the world to inflict severe damage on US’ interests that could be thousands of miles away from the principal battleground. Some of these Iran-supported militias have simply out-performed the Saudi-US supported forces and retained the upper hand, even where out-numbered. Even diplomatically and geopolitically, Iran today is not like Iraq in the previous two Gulf wars ie, internationally isolated, condemned and subjected to multi-lateral sanctions — the recent US moves against Iran have not been met with enthusiasm in the European Union and Donald Trump’s unilateralism may not lead to an effective “coalition” against Iran as was the case in 1991 or 2003.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo dashed to Saudi Arabia and the UAE to muster support, who along with Israel remain in the forefront of the very limited anti-Iran sentiment. Unlike the UN-approved sanctions that preceded the US moves in 1991 and 2003, approval of other nations against Iran in the UN Security Council is extremely unlikely. The possible realisation of the cost of misadventure against Iran may have led to the last-minute cancellation of US military operations despite being in “cocked and loaded” status. Perhaps electoral considerations may still lead to a very limited military action, but only that as Iran is no pushover societally, militarily, diplomatically or in the present case, even morally.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)
SWriter: Bhopinder Singh
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Modi is still playing comparatives in his speeches when the expectation from him is much more post-verdict
Now that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a massive mandate for governance and has successfully reduced the Congress to an existential crisis, he certainly needs to get the bugbear of anti-Congressism off his back. There is no doubt that India has vociferously voted against dynastic entitlement and for deserved empowerment. If he has indeed managed to convince voters of his leadership capabilities, frankly, there is no need for him to justify it again and again. Which is why the take down of the Congress during his first speech in the 17th Lok Sabha and even in the Rajya Sabha was more like rubbing salt into the Congress’ wounds than addressing the people who voted him back and are looking for new directions in stressed times. The Congress is already pounded. Doing more of the same won’t affect it but it could make Modi look obsessive about a party and keeping it relevant as an excuse with his sarcasm and negative projection. Rather, moribund as it is, he should let it collapse under its own weight. Besides, elections are over now. Perhaps it was the anniversary of the Emergency that did it but Modi tore into the Congress leadership for being out on bail while imprisoning others during its own tenures in history. Then he demolished Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury’s argument that Modi could not diminish the party’s “high” stature, saying the party was so “high” that it was cut off from the grassroots and he would rather it stay there while he connected to the people. Then there was the familiar trope of crediting non-family Congressmen whose contribution went unacknowledged — Pranab Mukherjee, Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh — and how the NDA regime had no issue about acknowledging the work of all past Prime Ministers, beginning with Jawaharlal Nehru. In fact, the reference to Nehru stood apart as he has not been charitable to the Congress’ dynastic fountainhead through the heat and dust of campaigning but urged lawmakers to learn from his sense of duty to society. Of course, the smart jab at his descendants was unmistakable. And not that the Congress would change its stance on the Triple Talaq Bill in Parliament, but by recalling its position on the Uniform Civil Code and the Shah Bano case, Modi exposed its votebank mentality of minority appeasement than welfare. Knowing full well that the Bill wouldn’t get enough support in the Rajya Sabha, Modi wants to show that he tried but was stalled by the Congress. Apportioning blames and competitive comparisons have been a part of our politics but when it comes to Modi and the way he has crafted his journey, the expectations are not sundry. Nobody likes oversold cliches.
Which is why there needed to be more emphasis on his development work. He did touch upon three areas succinctly that need attention. Although “Make in India” was not showcased much during the campaign, it being considered the NDA’s Achilles’ heel, it was bold of Modi to rescue his pet project and reinstate its primacy in his development vision. He even linked it to the “collective endeavour to make India a five trillion dollar economy.” The country really needed to hear more of his economic blueprint at a time when growth rates are sputtering, there are challenges of boosting investment while giving tax breaks and incentives and there is pressure to be people-friendly immediately after such a massive mandate. Sensing the anxieties about climate change and resources, Modi rightly emphasised that water conservation was everybody’s responsibility and though he had created Jal Shakti ministry to manage resources and ensure potable water to all, he implied a mass awareness, even with the help of NGOs. By recalling his days of sitting in protest against the delay in the Sardar Sarovar Dam project and how it helped farmers, Modi clearly hinted that this could be bigger than his Swachch mission and it could well be a populist pitch that would link the poor, the farmers, the underprivileged and privileged together. So far, his commitment to climate change has not matched his performance when it came to reprieve for thermal plants and underwhelming renewable energy goals. Besides, although he addressed the “sabka vishwas” plank by expressing grief over the Jharkhand mob lynching, he asked that the State be spared of the “lynching hub” tag and perpetrators identified. Would he have said the same about Bengal?
Writer & Courtesy: Editorial Team – The Pioneer
Unless we address the core issues, no amount of modern infrastructure will be able to bring in fundamental changes towards the working methodology of the police
Having gone through media reports about the recent incident at Mukherjee Nagar in North-West Delhi, where some policemen “thrashed” a tempo driver after he allegedly attacked a cop, one is compelled to wonder whether the usual talk of police reforms is yet another oxymoron? Normally, after training, a police officer is supposed to behave with a certain amount of discretion and sensitivity as he may be quite raw and not as experienced and hardened as some of his colleagues.
In the instant case, however, some policemen were reported to have conducted themselves in a very unprofessional manner, drawing adverse comment from all sections of society. This takes us to the quality of training and attitude of police officers who graduate from training schools. It appears that one of the fundamental schisms, which has continued since independence, is whether the police is a service or a force?
The conflict arises from the fact that the society has high expectations and considers the police to be a public service organisation, while the State continues to think of it not only as a service organisation for the society but also as an instrument of its sovereign functions like law and order, public order and internal security. Despite numerous commissions and recommendations, the police organisation has remained as it is. Sometimes it appears strange that despite the police being a State subject and each State having its own set of rules, there is something that binds the police into a homogenous entity as far as the methodology of work and attitude towards the public are concerned.
In this context, the Union Home Ministry’s renewed efforts at giving a push to police reforms must be welcomed. To begin with, a country-wide competition to adjudge the best police station was initiated. Police stations competed with each other on the basis of seven parameters, which included among other things, crime prevention, pro-active policing along with public perception and feedback. Some of these have, perhaps, been included for the first time and give impetus to the policemen to take into account the attitude of the public towards the police and policing in general. Topping the Union Home Ministry’s list was the Kalu police station in Rajasthan’s Bikaner district. The second in rank was Campbell Bay in Nicobar district. Farakka police station in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district ranked third. It is to be hoped that such competitions will generate a lot of enthusiasm and bring in the much-needed fresh air into the police stations besides leading to the much-desired course-correction.
Undoubtedly, some of these parameters are extremely important and may even be fundamental to providing good governance to the public. In today’s media-driven world, public perception is vital for credibility of any organisation. The police in particular — as even a small incident like the one mentioned — can be stigmatised and spoil years of hard-earned reputation. At the same time, we must also give a deeper thought to reforms, as despite orders from the Supreme Court, there appears to be an inherent reluctance in implementing them in a meaningful manner.
While the array of police reforms implemented so far — to modernise the communication networks, mobility, IT applications and weaponry among others — has only touched the metropolitan areas and the more fortunate among the district headquarters, large segments of our population continue to be under-policed with the department unable to provide even some of the basics in certain areas. Visible implementation of such infrastructural reforms, even though in a limited manner, besides giving a modern and contemporary look, have resulted in a quantum jump towards efficiency of the police besides leading to a positive perception among the public of being progressive. But unless we address the core issues, no amount of modern infrastructure will be able to bring in fundamental changes towards the working methodology of the police all over the country.
The police and the public enjoy an ambivalent relationship with each other. Even when the police personnel are very friendly — having a positive attitude and police stations with a modern look — people become apprehensive the moment they hear of the police procedures and the courts. Police being integral to the criminal justice system, almost all its actions have to be ultimately placed before the judicial officers, as required by the code of criminal procedure and the various State police rules.
As the number of cases goes up, not only the work load of investigating officers increases, it also adds to delays and pendency in the courts, resulting in an increase in the overall time spent on each case before its final disposal. Such increasing work load and delays deny justice to the people on the one hand and on the other, it propels the stressed out and overworked police officer towards rudeness and offensive behavior.
In the process, the common man suffers, for justice delayed is justice denied. The Code of Criminal Procedure currently in vogue is basically a document of 1898 vintage. Some amendments have been made from time-to-time but the basic structure remains more or less the same. In fact, most of the aberrations in the working of the police find their origin from this Code.
As such, besides improving and modernising the training and other infrastructural needs as per current and future projections, the real reform will take effect only when such administrative changes are coupled with changes in the requisite police and court procedures. Today, a person is more concerned with the police scriptory work and the court procedures as he may have to make several visits to the police station and later to the courts. Such time-consuming and complicated procedures bring a lot of negativity in the police public relations. Besides, these have almost no bearing on establishment-related reforms of fixity of tenures and the constitution of Security Commissions at the State or national levels. In the current dispensation of procedures, hardly any emphasis has been laid on expediting the delivery of justice to the common man, which in fact should be the top priority.
In order to address all such issues in a comprehensive manner, roughly 20 years ago, the Ministry of Home Affairs had constituted a committee to go into various aspects of the criminal justice system. This committee had submitted a very comprehensive and a meaningful report. The recommendations were not only to expedite the delivery of justice, but also emphasised upon greater involvement of judicial officers at the time of trial to ascertain the truth.
At present we follow the adversarial system, which no doubt gives a very fair trial. In the inquisitorial system, which is followed in most of the European countries including France and Germany, the supervision of the investigation is done more closely by the judicial officers. It had been recommended that in our prevailing social conditions, an adversarial system with certain good features of inquisitorial system could still be adopted. Changes in the basic approach to investigation were also suggested. An important recommendation was to introduce a provision in the Code where any court shall at any stage of inquiry or trial, would have such powers as to issue directions to the investigating officer to make further investigation or to direct the supervisory officer to take appropriate action for more pointed investigation so as to assist the court in search of truth. Some changes in the nature of the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt were also suggested. For some reason, this very useful report was shelved after the change of government in 2004.
Ultimately for the benefit of the common man, it would be of utmost importance to deal with the criminals effectively and speedily by expeditious delivery of justice. Accordingly, the police reforms have to be two-tiered. One at the level of the organisation and the establishment besides training and second at the procedural level, entailing a comprehensive review of the code of criminal procedure and state police rules. In the current scenario simply increasing the number of investigators or the number of courts may not suffice as the need of the hour is to introduce comprehensive reforms in the criminal justice system.
(The writer is a retired Delhi Police Commissioner and former Uttarakhand Governor)
Writer: KK Paul
Courtesy: The Pioneer
The easy availability and influx of illegal arms is a serious matter and should not be politicized
It would be easy enough to dismiss Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s claim of the city soaring high on the crime graph and the Delhi Police refuting his claim of nine murders in 24 hours as another bout of the persistent Centre-State duel. Some would even argue that the heightened rhetoric was geared towards the Assembly elections at the end of the year or early 2020 and that the Chief Minister was busy building a case for full statehood and handing over of policing powers to the State government. But that would be facetious for cold facts seldom lie. So it is that 1,169 crimes have already been recorded till May 2019 as against 842 in 2018. At least 220 bullets have been fired on the streets in 43 incidents over the last 30 days, resulting in 16 deaths. Of course, these do not include cases where victims were held at gunpoint or were waylaid, accosted, stabbed or bludgeoned. The crime map is uniform, equally prevalent in east, west, north and south. Worst, the shootings are not the result of gangland rivalries but triggered by petty issues of personal enmity, attempted robbery or snatching, even extortion, and have all taken place in the public eye.
There is no doubt about growing criminality in a stressed society as a tool for negotiation, considering that the justice redressal system is horribly compromised. But to get killed at the drop of a hat, either by strangers or friendlies, clearly is a major anomaly in the country’s capital. Except, a surgical analysis clearly shows that street crimes have proportionately increased with the entry of illegally manufactured and procured weapons. Sleuths have actually narrowed down on illegal supplier networks. These retailers are safely ensconced in the Mewat region of Haryana, Aligarh in West Uttar Pradesh, Khargone in Madhya Pradesh and Bhawani Mandi in Rajasthan. Surprisingly, retired engineers and craftsmen, too, have been drafted into the illicit trade of arms manufacturing. For example, the Government owned British-era gun factory in Munger was shut down four decades ago and left hundreds of workers unemployed. They took to arms manufacturing in illegal units as they knew no other work. Besides, Delhi itself is fast emerging as a transit hub for arms. These illegal manufacturers have built factories, taking cover in forested areas or non-descript residential complexes. Though Delhi Police might be defending itself, let it not be forgotten that the High Court has been pulling it up for not evolving an effective pan-city mechanism of crime control and instead selectively addressing complaints and more recently, scaring citizens with brutalisation. Clearly, there is a security breach.
Courtesy: The Pioneer
J&K Governor Satya Pal Malik and Hurriyat’s Mirwaiz Umar Farooq may yet find a salve to a seriously damaged Valley
Given the shadow of the worst militant attacks in Pulwama and the ice-cold freeze on talks between India and Pakistan following the Balakot airstrikes, one had not expected this reciprocation. But the relentless overtures of Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik in reaching out to the Valley’s youth, village communities and now even the Hurriyat Conference for talks and dialogue have clearly got things moving. Hurriyat’s moderate face and chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has confirmed being part of the talks, saying a government with a massive mandate should initiate a political process and end the cycle of violence. At least the acquiescence to the Governor’s olive branch assumes significance at a time when Hurriyat leaders are being watched closely and have certain security restrictions in place. It is no secret that the Government is cracking down severely on Pakistan’s funding of militant activity, a move that has affected the Hurriyat, too. This squeeze perhaps explains the willingness of its leaders to sit across the table. But practically speaking, it seems the Hurriyat doesn’t want to be seen as a deal-breaker either. Of course, the bigger question is whether the talks will indeed take place or just be reduced to another round of tokenism as it has happened before.
Looking at the offer through the post-Balakot prism, which redefined the dynamic of deterrence for Pakistan-exported terrorism for good, there are new realities to be confronted by both sides. The most worrying aspect of the Pulwama attack was that the suicide attacker was a local youth who had been drafted in by the Jaish-e-Mohammad. The government can hardly afford more young men falling into the snare set by Pakistan-sponsored militant networks and trainers. And the hostile environment cannot be allowed to fester. So it is looking for ways and means to mainstream the dispossessed youth, the village contact programme breaking the status quo of the local leadership, which had almost taken this section of society for granted. Besides, unlike the flagrant belligerence of tall claims made by the central leadership of the ruling BJP, the Governor has been prudent, staying away from committing himself to any talk on Article 371 and Article 35 A, declaring how the flag of Kashmir was being placed next to the national flag on his car, publicising his earnestness to settle the anger of the younger generation and pledging to fight the drug menace in the State, a plank raised by the Mirwaiz, too. Further, by announcing the distribution of free-to-air Doordarshan set-top boxes to residents of border areas in Jammu and Kashmir, Malik has also neutralised the one-way information propaganda rather tidily. Even before Pulwama, the government had been insisting on talks with locals, acknowledging separatists as stakeholders in the dialogue process in its earlier term. By making the right noises, the government is trying to steer the Hurriyat away from the Pakistan-dictated narrative and reminding its leadership that its appeal too would be lost without a connect with the local youth. At the same time, by trying to heal the disturbed youth, it is reaching out to a society that is clearly tired of the violence and whose members do not have it in them to send more martyrs to a lost cause. The common Kashmiri now wants peace, stability and anchorage and does not want to consider being a migratory species. Already the apolitical Kashmiri talent pool has all but left the Valley. Even the Hurriyat realises that it cannot lose its social endorsement. And though it is still in the Government’s calipers, it doesn’t want to lose its psychological hold over the locals or risk their weariness. Particularly at a time when Pakistan is under global pressure to tone down its adventurism. This is the reason why the pathological hatred of the hawkish Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani towards any peace move, which has been scuttling the talks process for years, is no longer relevant. And though the Hurriyat has been a collective identity, individually Mirwaiz and Yasin Malik had taken divergent positions. While there is no dilution of the Government’s “no talks without terror” line with Pakistan, Governor Malik’s non-adversarial, velvet glove approach has clearly softened the edges. Trust takes time to develop and the Government has to tread the ground cautiously without fanning jingoistic irritants and avoid missteps like the rubber pellet firing at children instead of stone pelters.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
In no other State has ‘political reservation’ of seats taken place as in J&K. Governor Malik must use legislative powers to set up a commission and fix glaring anomalies
The recent euphoria over a fresh delimitation exercise to restructure the lopsided constituencies in Jammu & Kashmir quickly dissipated as the Centre denied media reports that Home Minister Amit Shah is considering such a move. Since then, Governor Satya Pal Malik has earned the public ire for asserting that the Government has no intention of scrapping Articles 370 and 35-A; his recommendation that the time is ripe for talks with separatist Hurriyat leaders has further inflamed some passions. Perhaps these are straws in the wind that suggest some changes are in the offing.
In a little-noted development, on June 16, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) Jammu & Kashmir unit passed a resolution seeking fresh delimitation of Assembly constituencies and de-freezing of at least eight of the 24 seats reserved for Pakistan-occupied territories. It lamented the “gross injustice done to Ladakh and Jammu regions” by previous National Conference (NC) Governments that gave undue weightage to the Kashmir valley and proposed that the eight seats be allotted to the Jammu region, for families that fled Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoJK) in 1947-48, currently estimated at 12-13 lakh.
It bears stating that the BJP has tried to ensure Indian citizenship to Hindus fleeing religious persecution in Pakistan. Under the first Modi Government, refugees settled in Rajasthan were granted citizenship and the trend continues. On World Refugees Day (June 20), 19 Pakistani migrants in the border district of Barmer received citizenship and another 10 people in Pali and five in Jalore were promised citizenship. Reports suggest that there are thousands of Pakistani Hindus in Rajasthan who are likely to receive citizenship soon. It is difficult to believe that the Centre will indefinitely ignore the plight of West Pakistan refugees in Jammu & Kashmir.
The BJP State unit also urged political reservation for Scheduled Tribes (Gujjars, Bakarwals, Gaddis and Sippis), who were given Schedule Tribe (ST) status in 1991, but denied reserved seats. Further, it objected to the law requiring Kashmiri Pandit migrants to fill the “M Form” for voting in the Valley.
The regional angst over Kashmiri domination over the State is valid. After Maharaja Hari Singh’s accession to India, the Constituent Assembly was set up but Sheikh Abdullah used the political weightage gifted to him by former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to unilaterally declare the delimitation: Kashmir (43), Jammu (30) and Ladakh (2). This became the entrenched orthodoxy that was later only tinkered with: Kashmir (46), Jammu (37) and Ladakh (4). Abdullah reserved 25 seats for the occupied regions, which was subsequently reduced to 24.
When the delimitation controversy broke out on June 4, former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, in a number of tweets, offered the “legal position” on delimitation in Jammu & Kashmir. The freeze, he claimed, was implemented only to bring the State at par with the rest of the country after the Constitution (84th Amendment) Act 2001 froze delimitation throughout India, until the first census is taken after the year 2026. The truth is a little more complex.
During Emergency, the Congress moved the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act 1976, to freeze fresh delimitation after Census 2001, on the plea that changing the number of seats according to population punished States that had controlled their population growth. This protected the number of seats of southern States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka in the Lok Sabha and was generally viewed as fair by the rest of the country. In 1977, the Congress fared well in precisely these States.
A quarter century later, the Constitution (84th Amendment) Act 2001, postponed delimitation and prevented reallocation of seats to the States to reflect their growing population until the Census after 2026, ie, Census 2031. However, the 84th amendment permitted redrawing of boundaries of constituencies within the States to mitigate large differences and enable constituencies of more or less equal population strength.
The problem in Jammu & Kashmir begins with the arbitrary and partisan allocation of seats on provincial basis by Sheikh Abdullah, long before the fig-leaf of Article 370 bestowed a special political protection to the actions of the State leadership. In no other Indian State has this kind of “political reservation” of seats taken place to preserve the ethno-religious supremacy of one group.
Consider the recently divided Andhra Pradesh — there was no en bloc reservation of seats for any district or division before or after the separation of Telangana. Previously, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government divided the States of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and here, too, there was never any rigid and arbitrary allotment of seats to any region. Take Maharashtra, where demand for a separate Vidarbha has been simmering for decades — there is no fixed allocation of seats for the region.
This astonishing development is exclusive to Jammu & Kashmir and gave the Muslim-dominated Valley undue power over the State. Strangely, Jammu activists, who rail against Kashmiri domination, have never fought to do away with this artificial division and to treat the entire State as a single unit, with delimitation on the basis of population. Instead, they have validated this artifice by demanding trifurcation (and sometimes quadrification) of the State along these lines — a cause that does not find much resonance in the rest of the country. Many citizens feel that once Article 370 is removed, many sources of discrimination will simply vanish.
It seems doable to use the leeway granted by the 84th Amendment Act to redraw the constituencies within Jammu & Kashmir afresh, without a predetermined weightage to any province, giving due regard to population on the basis of Census 2011. As the last delimitation of Jammu & Kashmir was in 1995, it would be an abominable injustice to wait 60 years till Census 2031 for a fresh delimitation.
It is also unconscionable to continue to deny reservations to the STs. Moreover, the seven Schedule Caste seats have been stagnant in Jammu Pradesh since 1996, viz, Chhamb, Domana, RS Pura (Jammu district); Samba, Hiranagar (Kathua district); Chenani (Udhampur district) and Ramban. There is no merit in freezing this rotation until 2031 and denying the SC population in other constituencies (in both Jammu & Kashmir provinces) of representation in the Assembly. Nor is this system followed in any other State. Under President’s rule, the Governor enjoys all legislative authority and can set up a delimitation commission to fix these glaring anomalies.
(The writer is Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library; the views expressed are personal)
Writer: Sandhya Jain
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Rising tensions between the US and Iran have put India’s traditional ties with Tehran on test. It’s time New Delhi weighs its options and takes a tactful decision
India is a strategic neighbour of Iran. Both countries are important and effective political and economic actors in South and West Asia. Common culture and communications have strengthened relations between the two since centuries. Over the past 20 years, Iran has put in place three major projects to improve cooperation with India. First was the participation in a mega project for the construction of a gas pipeline, which has long been called the Peace Pipeline. The second relates to the project of drilling and gas production from the Farzad-B gas field in the Persian Gulf. The third is the strategic development of the Chabahar Port. These are three main issues in the prospect of developing economic relations between Iran and India. The implementation of each of these projects can have a positive effect on the development of political relations between the two countries.
Furthermore, for a long time, particularly since the beginning of the economic reforms in the 1990s, India, as a steady buyer of Iran’s oil, has been a reliable partner of the National Oil Company. Several Indian refineries have set up their manufacturing processes in Iran based on the specifications of Iranian petroleum.
In the first round of Iranian oil sanctions between 2010 and 2015, Indians repeatedly negotiated with the US Government on exemptions from Iran’s sanctions and even conducted high-level political consultations in such a way that almost during the entire period, Iran’s oil exports to India, although reduced to a small extent, were never cut off. This was possible due to the apparent determination of India to keep its oil-related cooperation with Iran going than comply with the US Government’s approach. Indians knew it well that they should keep their interests despite the severe tension between Iran and the West.
India has prioritised its national interest by having a stable line of cooperation with its neighbours and major countries in the South and West Asia, where Iran is a key country. This matter led to the continuation of selling oil to India during Iran’s oil sanctions. And after the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) deal, India was one of those countries which earnestly increased its oil transaction with Iran to a level even higher than before.
At the same time, even though some nations doubted the continuation of calmness between Iran and the US, India, interestingly and undoubtedly, began developing its relations with Iran, resulting in the signing of an Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two countries for the development of the Chabahar Port in May 2015. India is well aware that cooperating with neighbours and actively participating in developing projects with them will play a crucial role in its own development and resource management. In fact, India knows that oil from Iran will be in the best interests of its people.
However, with a new round of US sanctions on Iran coming into effect — especially against its oil industry, which was earlier out of the international free trade agreement and against the rules of international law of the White House — India has been compelled to reduce its purchases of Iranian oil and subsequently stopped purchasing it for some months. India is the world’s third largest oil importer and a large share of that comes from Iran (23.5 million tonnes in 2018-19). The stoppage of imports has not only hurt the oil economy but is definitely not good news for New Delhi as this decision can put its bilateral relations with Iran at risk. India and Iran have a deeply historical and cultural relationship and have also maintained robust political relations despite many obstacles. The latter has been a regional partner and a loyal neighbour to the former. Both nations have worked together for the stability of their respective regions.
The handing out of the development of the Chabahar Port to India was of strategic advantage to Iran. The latter looked at the former as a project partner (while the Chinese work at the port of Gwadar) due to the trust it had in India as a loyal neighbour. For India, the Chabahar project is expected to serve as a gateway to central Asia besides promising trade benefits to the country. For the purpose of building further relations as well as for regional stability, it will be in New Delhi’s interest to work more closely with Tehran to avoid any direct backlash.
Throughout the idea of constructing a pipeline for gas export to Pakistan and then extending it to India, Iran encouraged India to participate. India, too, showed great interest and enthusiastically took part in the negotiations. After about 14 years of talks and with a changed regional gas market scenario, India withdrew from the agreement because of security issues and high costs although there was an opportunity for it to cooperate in gas trade with Iran through a straight line of submarine pipelines. Meanwhile, the Farzad B gas field development project in the Persian Gulf, too, is lying in a limbo even as it was provided the highest level of historical flexibility to develop this project. These two major energy projects hold the potential to uplift the Indian economy and boost India’s energy supply requirements for industrial development. Although for Iran, such experiences will not change its approach either now or in the future. After all, economic issues cannot eliminate the essential importance of cooperation between the two great countries.
With Iran being under economic pressure and the US sanctions hovering over it, these are testing times for India. It has to not only deal with the US pressure but has to also secure its interests vis-à-vis Iran. Iran’s oil export and the development of the Chabahar Port are two completely different issues on the face of it. Refineries in India are Iran’s old oil buyers and the Chabahar Port developer has no organisational relationship with them. But the fact is that both these issues are related to the “political will of both countries” to further cooperation.
The catch 22 situation for India lies in managing relations with both, the US and Iran. It will be unacceptable if India acts in accordance with the US’ rules on Iran oil sanctions. However, in the development of the Chabahar Port, it has eagerly pursued discussion for exemption from sanctions. Now is the time for New Delhi to take an important decision. India has a precise programme for development and has made great strides in achieving economic and social success in the last half century. The world views it as an emerging superpower. As a regional power, Iran aspires to consider India as a stable country in its decisions to plan future cooperation on these experiences. It will be practically impossible for India to stop purchasing oil from Iran and pursue the development of the Chabahar port. Both nations need to prove their development potential through the successful implementation of the proposed projects and find ways and means around geopolitics.
(The writer is an Iranian journalist)
Writer: Reza Vosugh
Courtesy: The Pioneer
A needless controversy over the Rafale deal stalled major defence acquisition and development projects. But India has to start building and buying new equipment for strategic depth
India finds itself in a unique position compared to most other countries in the world. Unlike the United States (US), it does not have two gigantic moats protecting it from enemies and its rivals share thousands of kilometres of land borders, including a disputed territory, a lasting legacy of the amorphous borders from the colonial era. One side we have Pakistan, a state whose raison d’etre is to constantly proclaim India as an existential threat to the militarised state. On the other side, we have China, a nation with which we share a lot, but one that has taken immense strides over the past three decades and whose economic success is leading its President Xi Jinping to advocate a policy of territorial expansion. This is evident through island-building in the South China Sea and even through the controversial belt and Road Initiative, which is at many levels just a modern-day version of Imperial Japan’s Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity sphere. To compound matters, Pakistan is quickly becoming China’s first economic colony, even though projects in Sri Lanka and the Maldives have allowed China to take over assets in those nations and encircle us.
It is unlikely that China and India will have a repeat of the 1962 war in the immediate future, but it seems inevitable that China and the US will have some sort of confrontation within the next decade and India will play a role. So China’s strategy appears to be containing India as a potential risk, not just by propping up Pakistan’s military through hardware but indirectly supporting Pakistan-based terror organisations. India has been wary of these efforts from China, being the loudest and most vocal critic of the quasi-imperialist Belt and Road Initiative as well as focussing more defensive efforts towards its eastern border and making a belated effort to modernise its military.
But despite India’s record-busting military budgets of the past few years, it has not quite kept pace with China’s. Its poor economic growth over the past few years is the biggest culprit and has choked investments in defence production lines. India just does not have the economic capacity to match up to China and has been stymied by poor economic policy-making and inefficient governance for years. This has led to hugely delayed defence acquisition deals. In every aspect of military capability, India is falling dangerously behind China.
Take a look at the latest programme to build six new submarines under Project 75-I. The initial proposal for 24 submarines under Project 75 was initially made in 1997, and even though things were hustled after the 1999 Kargil conflict, the first six submarines of a smaller overall project are coming on line now. Most of India’s submarines are 30-year old plus Kilo class ones and their age is showing, with one of the Sindhurakshaks, as they are called, falling prey to old age when it caught fire in Mumbai. Even though India has inducted the Arihant as a nuclear attack submarine and has leased an Akula-class submarine from Russia, China’s navy has built a fleet of attack submarines as well as several ballistic missile submarines with which they can contain India.
China has dramatically built up its surface fleet as well. India has only 11 destroyers in commission, with four of the Vishakhapatnam-class under construction. However, these new ships will replace the old Rajput-class ships. China, on the other hand, has 36 destroyers, all commissioned after 1999 and several new ships that are entering service in the next 18-24 months. Our eastern neighbour has truly turned its industrial might in a massive ship-building programme and despite not being quite as advanced or capable as the American Navy with its giant super carriers, it is clearly the second-most powerful Navy in the world.
Similar advancements in China’s aerial and land forces besides manufacturing capacities have left India far behind, particularly with regard to India’s limited development capabilities. We do not even have a proper military-industrial complex. Poor planning, a socialist mindset towards protecting defence public sector units and corruption in defence deals have meant that India remains one of the world’s largest importers of military hardware.
The second-term Modi Government has an opportunity to change that as there is an overwhelming understanding among the public that India is falling behind on the military front. That is one of the major reasons why Rahul Gandhi’s “Rafale Scam” line bombed during the elections. There needs to be a major push towards much more industrial abilities within India, and as the space programme has proven, we can work towards advanced developmental abilities. For example, much like other advanced military nations, India has proven anti-satellite capabilities and is developing a hypersonic missile, both of which are useful systems in a potential conflict with a far more militarily advanced power. But more resources have to be poured into research and development of military abilities. A positive fallout of the failure of the Rafale scam to resonate with voters is that more private sector participation in military hardware and software development should now become the norm. The Indian private sector must contribute more towards India’s military development.
There needs to be far more thought and money put into building up India’s military preparedness. Even if a war is not around the corner, we should not fall back decades behind China and remain a importer of military hardware. India’s chest-thumping nationalism does not have much teeth to back it up. Going forward, India will need those teeth to extend its power and protect its economic and diplomatic interests. Even India’s friendlier neighbours are attracted by the lucre of China and a weak Indian military ensures they are not wary of us. There will be those who protest against rising militarism in India and the costs associated with it, but India does not have a choice but build up its military.
(The writer is Managing Editor, The Pioneer)
Writer: Kushan Mitra
Courtesy: The Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month