MFIs can tap ECB

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-business/article2730200.ece

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Monday allowed micro finance institutions (MFIs) to raise funds via external commercial borrowings (ECBs) up to $10 million or equivalent during a financial year for permitted end-uses under the automatic route. The MFIs eligible for the same will be: those registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860; those registered under Indian Trust Act, 1882; MFIs registered either under the conventional state-level cooperative acts, the national level multi-state cooperative legislation or under the new state-level mutually aided cooperative acts and not being a co-operative bank; non-banking finance companies (NBFCs) categorised as ‘non-banking finance company-micro finance institutions' (NBFC-MFIs) and companies registered under Sec. 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, and involved in micro finance activity. Further, the MFIs registered as societies, trusts and co-operatives and engaged in micro finance activities should have a satisfactory borrowing relationship for at least three years with a scheduled commercial bank authorised to deal in foreign exchange; and would require a certificate of due diligence on ‘fit and proper' status of the board/committee of management of the borrowing entity from the designated authorized dealer (AD) bank.

ECB funds should be routed through normal banking channels. NBFC-MFIs will be permitted to avail themselves of ECBs from multilateral institutions such as IFC and ADB/ regional financial institutions/international banks / foreign equity holders and overseas organisations.

Companies registered under Sec. 25 of the Companies Act and engaged in micro finance activities will be permitted to avail themselves of ECBs from international banks, multilateral financial institutions, export credit agencies, foreign equity holders, overseas organisations and individuals. Other MFIs will be permitted to raise funds via ECBs from international banks, multilateral financial institutions, export credit agencies, overseas organisations and individuals.

However, overseas organisations and individuals complying with specific safeguards may lend.The RBI has also stipulated that the designated AD must ensure that the ECB proceeds are utilised for lending to self-help groups or for micro-credit or for bona fide micro finance activity, including capacity building. It has also been decided that non-government organisations engaged in micro finance activities can avail themselves of ECB up to $10 million or equivalent under the automatic route as against the present limit of $5 million or equivalent per financial year. The RBI has also said that these amendments to ECB policy would come into force with immediate effect and the framework with respect to MFIs would be reviewed after one year.

Solar Industry of India

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-business/article2727365.ece

Today the solar industry is just how IT was in the early 1980s

It is peak hour traffic in Mumbai and your car stops at a signal. A bunch of kids run to your window. Guess what they are selling? Not selling newspapers or toys. They are selling solar panels.

This picture, envisioned by a solar company head, is a hyperbole, but it underlines the fact that today the solar industry is just how IT was in the early 1980s or telecom in the early 1990s.

In less than a decade, solar panels on your rooftop will be powering your television, refrigerator and lights in your house. Your rooftop will be producing more electricity than what you need, you will be putting in the surplus power into the grid and when you do that, your meters will be spinning backwards, reducing your current bill. Why, even the glass panes that make up the exterior of the upcoming office complex in the neighbourhood could be generating current.

It is elementary physics that when light falls on certain semiconducting materials like silicon, its energy knocks off electrons off the atoms, which can be made to flow and the flow is electricity. There is nothing new or cutting-edge here. After all, solar panels have been powering instruments on board satellites for 60 years. Why, several of us have had solar water heaters in our houses for years and solar cookers are not uncommon. So, what is happening now, that we believe that we are at the head of a megatrend?

The answer, in a word, is ‘cost'. Earlier, we did not use solar much because it was frightfully costly. However, in the last decade, as the fear of climate change began gripping the world, some of the developed countries in their enlightened self interest, began looking for alternatives. With incentives for generation and obligation for purchase, ‘solar' moved from labs into homes.

Prices of panels to fall

Sensing an explosion in demand, various countries began creating factories for producing solar panels and components. Alongside, research intensified to make panels that could convert more of sun's energy into electricity. A combination of large production capacities and improved efficiency caused the prices of solar panels to fall. About four years ago, to put up 1 MW of solar plant, it cost Rs.21 crore. Today it costs less than Rs.10 crore. Still, solar power remained significantly higher than conventional power. Fostering domestic solar industry, comprising both units that generated power and those that produce the equipment for doing so, still needed a policy push.

Although there were a few schemes that incentivised solar power plants here and there, the first major policy driver came in the form of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission, which was one of the eight missions under the National Action Plan for Climate Change. The Mission envisions creation of a capacity of 20,000 MW from grid-connected solar plants and an additional 2,000 MW from plants not hooked up to the grid, such as small plants that supply only to the nearby villages, and the rooftop micro plants for powering homes. There are two ways of producing electricity from solar power — the panel way and the mirror way, where sun rays are reflected onto a trough of oil to gather heat, make steam which turns the turbines and generates electricity. The solar mission's idea is to engender creation of both — 10,000 MW each. The programme is being implemented in three phases. Under the first, the idea is to get entrepreneurs to set up plants with a total capacity of 1,000 MW. This again has been split into two batches and the process of award of projects under the second batch has just begun.

Here is where it gets interesting. When the first batch was opened last year, bidders offered to sell power at shockingly low tariffs, some as low as Rs.11.50. Early this month, under Batch-II, tariffs fell even lower. A French company, called Solairedirect, has offered to put up a 5 MW plant and sell power at Rs.7.49, setting a new benchmark. The average tariff moved from Rs.12 in the first batch to Rs.8.80 in the second. Solar power is getting within the reach of the common man. This was possible because due to slack demand from the economically-troubled Europe, prices of solar modules have been dropping exponentially. Module prices have fallen to less than a dollar a watt — a fifth of what they were in 2006. It is expected that prices will further fall, and solar power will sell for Rs.5 a unit in just a few years.

With projects coming up both under the National Solar Mission as well as under the schemes offered by various States, India's solar capacity will grow to at least 1,300 MW in 2013, from 186 MW now.

But the real story of solar is not in grid-connected plants — after all, what is a few thousand megawatts in the country's total installed capacity of 200,000 MW? The real story is in the mini grids in villages and rooftops in cities. The former will have tremendous social impact, as has been seen in the few hundred villages that have been provided lighting with solar power — something a savvy politician will not fail to take note of.

The flipside

While ‘solar power' has taken off smoothly, there are some concerns too. The global fall in module prices that helped bring down tariffs in India is also crippling the domestic manufacturing industry, thereby, defeating one of the key objectives of the solar mission. Companies such as Tata BP Solar, unable to compete against what appears to be distress sales by overseas manufacturers, particularly the Chinese, have had to shut down operations.

Thus, the solar industry is also delicately poised. Will the government impose a customs duty to protect and develop the local solar equipment industry? Or will it allow cheap imports in order to bring down costs and therefore tariffs? The coming budget will have an answer.

In addition, there is the issue of perfecting the grid so as to handle solar power. The problem with solar power is, if a cloud passes over, the generation will drop and when the sun shines again, it will pick up.

The grid will need to be smart enough to handle these vagaries, so that the entire solar programme does not trip over it.

COP 17

http://www.cop17-cmp7durban.com/

The United Nations Climate Change Conference, Durban 2011, brings together representatives of the world's governments, international organizations and civil society. The discussions will seek to advance, in a balanced fashion, the implementation of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the Bali Action Plan, agreed at COP 13 in 2007, and the Cancun Agreements, reached at COP 16 last December.

• What is COP?

Since the UNFCCC entered into force in 1995, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC have been meeting annually to assess progress in dealing with climate change.

The COP adopts decisions and resolutions, published in reports of the COP.  Successive decisions taken by the COP make up a detailed set of rules for practical and effective implementation of the Convention.

• What is CMP?

The COP serves as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, which also adopts decisions and resolutions on the implementation of its provisions.  

This annual meeting is referred to as the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP).

However, Parties to the Convention that are not Parties to the Protocol are able to participate in the CMP as observers, but without the right to take decisions.

• COP /CMP Presidency

The office of the Conference President rotates annually between the five United Nations (UN) regional groups.  Mexico held the COP 16 / CMP 6 in 2010 and is currently the COP/CMP President.

The African Group will be the next proud host of the Conference with COP 17 / CMP 7 taking place from 28 November to 9 December 2011 in Durban, South Africa.  Kenya held the Presidency of the Conference in 2006 with the COP 12 / CMP 12 in Nairobi.

Following the procedural rules of the Conference, it is customary for the COP and CMP to elect as President a minister from the host country.  The President of COP 17/CMP 7 is Ms Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, the South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation.

• Who can participate in COP17/CMP7?

As with previous United Nations (UN) Climate Change conferences, participation at COP 17 and CMP 7 will be restricted to appropriately nominated representatives of Parties, observer States, accredited observer organizations and the accredited media.

Those Parties to the Convention that are not Parties to the Protocol may participate as observers in the meeting of the Parties.

Thousands of participants from government representatives to observer organizations take part in sessions.  The COP 15 in Copenhagen in 2009 attracted over 24,000 delegates, including some 10,590 government officials, over 13,000 representatives of UN bodies and agencies, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and 3,221 accredited media members. COP 16 / CMP 6 in Cancun last year had over 11,800 participants

------------------------------------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/06/india-europe-climate-change-agreement

India dampens Europe's hopes of a new climate change agreement

India last night rejected a European roadmap to a new single, legally-binding agreement to revive the stuttering UN climate talks.

Using robust diplomatic language, environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan challenged rich countries to ratify a second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol (KP), and pay what they had promised to developing countries before trying to negotiate a new deal.

The comments came ahead of a meeting between Europe, the Basic countries - India, China, Brazil and South Africa - and the US to try to win support for the EU's proposal to try to negotiate a new legally binding treaty by 2015 that would take effect in 2020.

China has been ambiguous on whether it will support the EU, while Brazil said it was still in discussions. South Africa's president referred to the roadmap in his speech but did not commit to it.

The group of four powerful "Basic" countries put pressure on Europe by claiming that developing countries had pledged to cut more emissions than the rich and the onus should now be on them to make deeper cuts.

"It is time that the developed countries stepped up to fulfil their part of the [legal] commitment under Kyoto. There is an ambition gap because Kyoto partners have not fulfilled their political obligations," said Natarajan.

In a clear reference to Canada, Russia and Japan, she said: "There are more countries in the wings preparing to announce their intention to forsake their international obligation."

Natarajan's defence of Kyoto was backed by China. "A second commitment period is a must. Kyoto should be continued. Developed countries should honour their commitments," said Xie Zhenhua, head of Chinese delegation at Durban.

India's continued hostility to the EU proposal was underlined when Natarajan suggested the EU's proposal was unclear. "I have come to Durban with an open mind. But I would like to know whether [the proposal] would be binding only for mitigation and whether it will be same for Annex-1 [industrialised] and non-Annex1 [developing] countries. Commitment for finance and technology, whether it will be present or not, how will equity figure in such an agreement, how will [intellectual property rights] be handled."

But the EU challenged India to outline an alternative that would harness the emissions of leading economies. Isaac Valero Ladron, spokesman for the EU environment commissioner Connie Hedegaard, said: "Will India take on the responsibility of being a major economy, to give a clear political signal that it will commit in the future? This is the question that should be answered in Durban. If they say no to the roadmap, what are they going to do? What is the alternative they are positing? Major emitters, developed and developing, should say here in Durban when they will be ready for a legally binding agreement."

To bolster its argument that rich countries must do more, India referred to a recent study by the Stockholm Environment Institute of the pledges made last year in Cancún by all countries. It shows that developing countries are pledging 30%-50% more cuts than the rich, and that the rich may be able to avoid taking any action whatever to meet their pledges by taking advantage of accounting loopholes.

Sivan Kartha and Peter Erikson of the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) said: "Developing countries pledges amount to more absolute mitigation than all developed countries. Unless accounting rules for Annex 1 countries are made more stringent, then Annex 1 countries will be able to formally comply with their pledges with very little actual mitigation and possibly none at all."

Kartha and Erikson reviewed four recent detailed studies of countries' mitigation pledges under the Cancún agreements and concluded that these would lead to a 3-5C rise. They conclude that under both high and low growth conditions, and with both lax and lenient rules, developing countries had so far pledged to cut much more than rich countries.

The figures are significant because they undermine the EU's insistence that a new legally binding agreement is needed to get developing countries to cut emissions further.

But Hedegaard suggested that China was still not pledging enough to meet the conditions under which the EU would agree to sign up to a second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol.

"I still believe that China holds one of the central keys to unlock the situation. The EU is willing to take a second Kyoto period, but the central issue remain how China will follow us and when. Here more clarifications and further dialogue are needed."

Major developed countries also suggested reports that the Chinese had swung in favour of a new legally binding deal were wrong.

"China has always said it is in favour of a legally binding deal – that binds developed countries to make emissions cuts. It is certainly not clear that they are now saying they will take on international legally binding targets on the same basis [as developed countries], which is what we're talking about here," said one participant who could not be named.

Todd Stern, the US special envoy for climate change, cast doubt on whether China was showing greater flexibility in its position, as the UK had suggested. Fresh from a meeting with the Chinese minister Xie Zhenhua, he told a press conference: "It's not my impression that there has been a change at all in respect to a legally binding agreement. I did not understand [from] Mr Xie that there was any change."

The Greenpeace UK chief policy adviser, Ruth Davis, said: "The EU needs to stand firm and refuse to back down on its demand that we get a legal deal in 2015, but it will need the help of the hosts South Africa. That's what the vast majority of countries here want to see happen."

Kaun banega Scorepati ?

The National Food Security Bill makes a futile and counterproductive distinction between ‘Priority' and ‘General' households, even after excluding 25 per cent of the rural population.

- Jean Dreze

There is no typo in the title of this article, but the term “scorepati” is perhaps confusing. By way of explanation, let me introduce three acquaintances.

Meena, age 50, lives in a two-room kaccha hut with her disabled husband Chhote Lal who studied up to Class 2. They own half an acre of unirrigated land and a goat. Meena is unable to take up any remunerated work as Chhote Lal needs constant care. Without any specific means of subsistence, they live on one meal a day.

Zafar, age 35, never went to school but he learnt to read and write in a night school. Aside from harvesting the odd sack of grain from his small patch of land, he earns a pittance as a weaver. The family is struggling to make ends meet and two of his five children work as child labourers.

Jeetu, age 45, lives on his own — his family deserted him as he suffers from HIV/AIDS. He has been left to his own devices, in a one-room brick shed on the outskirts of the village. He is too weak to work. Compassionate villagers give him rice from time to time, with some vegetables on festival days — everyone is waiting for him to die.

‘Zero score' household

What do these people have in common? Answer: each of them belongs to a “zero score” household — a household that will get a score of zero in the Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC), if the Census reaches them at all.

The SECC is supposed to “rank” rural households on a scale of 0 to 7. A household's score is simply the number of “deprivations” it has from the following list of seven: (1) living in a single-room kaccha house; (2) having no adult member between the ages of 16 and 59; (3) being a female-headed household with no adult male member aged between 16 and 59; (4) having a disabled member and no able-bodied member; (5) being a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; (6) having no literate adult above 25 years; and (7) being a landless household deriving a major part of its income from manual casual labour. None of these criteria apply in the above examples.

After ranking households in this manner, a cut-off is supposed to be applied to identify “Priority” households — the main beneficiaries of the Public Distribution System (PDS) under the proposed National Food Security Bill (NFSB). For instance, if the cut-off is two, then Priority households will consist of all households with a score of two or more. The cut-off is supposed to be specified so that the share of Priority households in the population is around 46 per cent — the proportion of the rural population below the “Tendulkar poverty line” (about Rs.25 per person per day in rural areas), with a small margin for “targeting errors.” That, at any rate, seems to be the game plan as of now.

Adivasi households

Since Meena, Zafar and Jeetu have a score of zero, they are certain to be left out from the Priority list, even before the Census begins. The good news is that they are fictional characters. But it would be easy to find real-life examples of such situations, or of other stark cases of poor — even destitute — households being left out of the Priority list because they have a zero score. In fact, even households with a score of one are almost bound to be left out, since the cut-off is unlikely to be less than two.

The odd nature of this scoring system can be appreciated in more general terms by considering Adivasi (tribal) households — the most disadvantaged section of the rural population. Since most Adivasi households possess a little bit of land, however unproductive, and a mud house with at least two rooms, the first and last “deprivations” in the list will not apply to them (note that even land possessed as a matter of traditional rights, without legal title, is to be counted as “owned” by the SECC). Further, a large majority are likely to have at least one able-bodied male adult aged between 16 and 59 years — the second, third and fourth criteria will not apply to them either. It follows that most Adivasi households will have a score of only one, unless they are “lucky” enough to have no literate adult, in which case their score will shoot up to two. But even a score of two may not catapult them into the Priority club. And if it does, Adivasi communities will be oddly split down the middle, between “score one” and “score two” families — a very divisive situation.

Support from Antyodaya

This state of affairs is all the more absurd as the distinction between “Priority” and “General” households in the NFSB is wholly unnecessary and counter-productive. As it is, the Bill calls for 25 per cent of rural households to be entirely excluded from the PDS. Now, if the proportion of excluded households is as high as 25 per cent (instead of 10 per cent as the National Advisory Council had proposed), it is absolutely pointless to split the rest into two groups. It would be much simpler and more sensible to give common minimum entitlements to all households that do not meet the exclusion criteria. This approach would reinforce, instead of undermining, the positive trend towards a more inclusive PDS in many States — Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Orissa, among others. Along with this, the poorest households could continue to receive special support under the Antyodaya programme, which is working reasonably well and should be consolidated — instead of being phased out as the NFSB comes into force.

This would not be the dream of a universal PDS, but it would still be relatively simple, practical and appealing. It would also resolve much of the alarming confusion that surrounds the Socio-Economic and Caste Census, NFSB, poverty lines, and related matters.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2665893.ece?homepage=true

FDI in Retail

In a show of audacity, the United Progressive Alliance government has decided to further open up the retail trade sector to foreign investment. Foreign investors will be permitted to enter the hitherto prohibited multi-brand retail segment and hold equity of up to 51 per cent in the units established. That there is widespread political opposition to this change in policy was known for long. Hence, the move is nothing short of a declaration that UPA II would proceed with implementing its agenda of economic reform, irrespective of whether there is majority support for, let alone a consensus on, that agenda. The opposition to foreign direct investment in the retail sector stems from a number of well-grounded fears. FDI in retail would introduce competition from large players with deep pockets and international sourcing capabilities who would be able to exploit economies in procurement, storage, and distribution to out-compete smaller traders and subordinate myriad small suppliers. The immediate and direct effect would be a significant loss of employment in the small and unorganised retail trade displaced by the big retail firms. The government's claims to the contrary are questionable. They exaggerate the direct and indirect employment that large retail would create and ignore the number of jobs they would displace. Conditions on foreign investors, such as the requirement of a minimum investment of $100 million and entry permission only for cities with populations exceeding one million are not material. They do not change the source of the competition — giants like Walmart, Tesco, and Carrefour — nor the locations in which such competition is most likely to be faced. And the requirement that 30 per cent of manufactured or processed products sold should be sourced from small and medium enterprises would be impossible to implement, especially because it applies to such producers from anywhere in the world.

An erosion of the incomes earned by petty producers is likely to accompany the loss of employment. Prices paid to and returns earned by small suppliers, especially in agriculture, would be depressed because a few oligopolistic buyers dominate the retail trade. This would shift the distribution of the margin above production costs implicit in the retail price away from the producers to the retailers. Given the precarious viability of crop production even at present, that shift could severely damage livelihoods. Moreover, once the retail trade is concentrated in a few firms, retail margins themselves could rise, with implications for prices paid by the consumer, especially in years when domestic supply falls short. None but the Manmohan Singh government believes that FDI in retail is a remedy for the relentless inflation the country faces. All things considered, it would be best advised to focus on improving public distribution and enhancing agricultural productivity — and not court more controversy pursuing a misplaced obsession.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/article2665876.ece

IOR-ARC

Opening Statement by EAM at the Council of Ministers’ Meeting of 11th Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC)

November 15, 2011

Excellencies, Distinguished Leaders of Delegations and

Members of the Official Delegations,

Allow me to first thank our officials, business persons and academics, as well as our Secretariat, for their diligent preparatory work for this meeting.

I am grateful to all of you for the confidence reposed in India, as we assume the Chair of this Association for the first time. My colleagues and I will work closely with you to contribute to our collective vision and to achieve our shared objectives.

We welcome Australia as the Vice Chair of our Association.

Excellencies,

Over six decades ago, our first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru envisioned a grouping of countries bordering the Indian Ocean that could help one another in tacking common challenges. This extraordinarily perceptive idea was realized in 1997 with the formation of our Association. We reaffirmed then that the Indian Ocean is an integral part of our collective destiny, and that we need a holistic vision for a cooperative response to current challenges for this region.

The key east-west arteries of international trade – especially in commodities and energy sources – run through our ocean. Maritime security issues impact on our strategic security and the conventional security of our boundaries. Technological evolution and the rising cost of natural resources have made it economically viable to harvest new resources from our sea beds.

The sustainability of our economic development in today’s ecologically challenged world requires efficient management of our shared seas. Conservation and sustainable harvesting are vital for the security of our marine food resources.

These are both opportunities and challenges for collaboration, which reinforce the cultural and civilizational factors that have historically united our region. Our Association is based on an open regionalism, permitting multiple channels of interaction in areas of regional and sub-regional interest.

Excellencies,

Piracy is a priority challenge. It increases the direct cost of trade. It adds indirect costs through increased insurance premia and a human cost to many of our nationals involved in the shipping industry. We need to build upon existing national, regional and multilateral measures to enhance coordination to combat piracy.

We can build functional relationships between our Navies and Coast Guards to enhance the security of our waters. Our port and customs authorities, as well as our shipping firms, need to address issues of transport infrastructure and connectivity that hinder trade.

The growth of intra-regional trade has been limited by poor connectivity, market complexities and inadequate trade facilitation. Our intra-regional investment flows are modest, though many of our economies are important destinations for foreign direct investment from outside our region. We need to promote initiatives to rectify this situation.

We should strengthen connections between our disaster management agencies. India is willing to share its experiences with the Tsunami Warning System for the Indian Ocean.

Our hydrology, marine biology and weather systems research institutions can develop mutually beneficial collaborative projects, share best practices and enhance national capacities. We can invite the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium, of which all our countries are members, to make a presentation on its work at our future meetings.

Our international technical cooperation programme, ITEC, offers capacity-building courses in a number of areas of priority interest to our Association. Our Foreign Service Institute has developed training modules that could be of interest to diplomats in our member-countries.

More regular educational, cultural and tourism exchanges can play a key role in promoting people-to-people understanding.

Excellencies,

Our officials have been discussing ways of simplifying procedures for utilization of our Special Fund. It should become an effective instrument for financing projects and studies of common interest. With this objective, India has decided to provide additional funding of US $ 1 million to the Fund.

Excellencies,

From our meetings over the last few days, we get the sense of widespread impatience for our Association to move from discussion to action. India shares this sentiment and would like our meeting today to impart the required momentum in this direction. We have asked all our Heads of Mission in your countries to attend our deliberations here, so that they can take forward our agenda in priority sectors of interest.

In conclusion, Excellencies, I thank you again for your support. I look forward to hearing your views on how best to make our Association more effective.

Thank you.

Bengaluru
November 15, 2011

Source - MEA Website

From The Gandhi Foundation

---- Reply from John Rowley, Co-ordinator of Special Events and Projects of The Gandhi Foundation ----

Dear Mr Mukherjee,

Thank you so much for your considered response.

This evening's meeting went well according to the only other Trustee who came. I do not have good hearing, the acoustics were not brilliant and, on top of that, I am unable to decipher many Indian accents. There were some very strong opinions expressed. There will be a report posted on our website fairly soon.

Best wishes,

---- Dr Uddipan Mukherjee to John Rowley ----

Dear Mr Rowley, 

Now its my part to tender an apology for the delay in replying.

Its 9th November today and we all are very sure of the fruitful discussion which must have taken place at The Human Rights Action Centre, London.

Difficult to search for words to delineate the actions of your Foundation.  More so, your acknowledgement :

"Comment and criticism of the original announcement escalated rapidly in the Indian media and cyberspace and we were simply unable to keep up", shows your concern regarding the voice of the masses. It categorically expresses your desire to authenticate an award and not merely impose it from the experts' point of view.

Further, your submission: "Our position is that the UK bears both an historic responsibility....." exhibits your aversion toward colonial and neo-colonial exploitative regimes.

At the other end, we strictly believe that nobody would seem to enjoy the activism (including the activists) as Dr Sen ad Mr Imam do not walk on the podium to accept the recognition of their life-long work. After all, pyrrhic victories do not calibrate the march of progress.

Today, it was postponement. Tomorrow, it could be a second thought. And day after tomorrow, a fresh award, and a fresh personality....

PS: Dr Sen's decision needs to be appreciated.  That further elevates him and anoints him in the service of the Adivasis. Mr Imam was pragmatic enough to visit London and discuss the issues. And we all, must at least, sneak out from our blankets and concern ourselves with those people who are NOT hapless, neither helpless, but simply under heaps of neo-colonial dictates.

Dr Sen refuses to accept the Award...

Dr Binayak Sens letter to the Gandhi Foundation, London

To
The Trustees of The Gandhi Foundation, London.

Dear Friends,

Ilina and I appreciate deeply the solidarity and support extended by so many friends from the United Kingdom and across the world in the course of my trial and incarceration. We were looking forward to meeting at least a few of you in the course of our proposed visit to the United Kingdom in November.

The original citation of the Gandhi International Peace Award when it came, was a surprise, as I on my own had never claimed to be a representative of the tribal people of India. However, I had always proudly claimed the heritage of a vernacular and indigenous life-world that was egalitarian and sustainable, and since the awarding body was free to make its own ascription, I humbly accepted the responsibility being put on me. I was fully aware that there could be many views about my fitness to undertake such a task, but it never occurred to me that my ethnic identity, in that I was not ethnically a member of the tribal people of India, would stand in my way.

To my understanding, the ethnic indigenous people of the world have suffered terrible violence in the course of the development of the capitalist state, a violence that has been directed equally against all colonized people, the working class, and other subaltern sections. Efforts to build a new society must be made by all oppressed people together. To claim to take on board the politics of genetic ethnicity as a part of this effort is a form of racism, and racism never smelt sweeter merely because it was articulated from the platform of a subaltern identity.

What we are confronting throughout India today is widespread hunger, compounded by widespread displacement, to the extent that it constitutes a stable famine spread over large parts of the country and over large sections of its people. Access to appropriate health care remains a dream for all except a privileged minority. The penetration of global capital into resource rich `undeveloped' regions, and the operation of industrial and mining interests in these areas have been responsible for this displacement and disenfranchisement of communities. State policies in countries like ours are aiding rather than curbing these processes. Urgent measures are needed to combat this hunger, stop this displacement and ensure equity, human rights, and social justice. However, voices of dissent are deliberately suppressed through outdated laws and juridical processes, and thousands of citizens languish in prison for opposition to these policies.

In the context of the award, the changed citation has only led to further contention and acrimony. Unfortunately, the process of nomination, the thinking behind the original citation and that behind the second, were never made public by the Gandhi Foundation. If the first citation was problematic, the second was even more so, as in this, the "Tribal People of India' of the first citation did not find any mention at all. This was not a position in which I could afford to be complicit. The level of debate is now such that the paramount issues outlined above threaten to be replaced by a palimpsest of ethnic fundamentalism. Under the circumstances, the really important task of delineating and combating the tragedy being enacted before our eyes gets pushed to the background.

Accordingly, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that at the present juncture it will not be appropriate for me to receive this award. My thanks go to those who nominated and to those who selected me for this award. It was never my intention to give offence or show disrespect to any of the parties in this controversy. I greatly regret any inconvenience that the organisers may be put to as a result of my decision.

Yours sincerely,
Binayak Sen

Open Letter...

This piece pertains to the debate regarding the bestowal of the Gandhi Foundation International Peace Award to Dr Binayak Sen and Mr Bulu Imam. 

http://gandhifoundation.org/

http://kolkatapresents.blogspot.com/2011/10/which-adivasi-what-india-by-gladson.html

The author has written this letter to Gladson Dungdung, Dr Binayak Sen, Mr Bulu Imam, Anand Patwardhan, Arundhati Roy, Ilina Sen, Jyoti Punwani and others involved in this debate.

--------------------------------------------

Dear All, 

First, I must admit (seemingly in an unabashed demeanour) ; that I am not an activist: at least as far as the definitional sense of the term is concerned. 

Hence, kindly excuse me as I encroach a turf which may be "phoren" to me. 

Before I dare to write a feeble Op-Ed through google's largesse, I should let you know that 

"I teach to feed myself and I write to free myself". 

Weird it may sound, such an introduction was necessary as I am no being who can even contemplate the echelons of fame that Dr Binayak Sen or Shri Anand Patwardhan or Jyoti Punwani or for that matter; most of the recipients in this list are entrenched in. 

Now, instead of indulging in prolixity; let me attempt to articulate my "self" regarding the matter in contention. 

1. I am privileged to be a part of this debate raised by Gladson et al. and intellectually defended by Shri Patwardhan et al. (if I may order the causality in this manner)

2. I know Gladson through his writings and I feel no qualms to convey that I use his 'ground-level' materials to strategize and theorise. 

We write in Uday India and that acts as a common platform.

Definitely, I therein become an 'arm-chair theorist' with a laptop, pen and loads of research paper all around. On the other end, my friend Gladson doesn't stroll, rather toil in the woods; collate data and then write, with elan and exuberance. 

I am based within the confines of laxity at Kolkata, whereas Gladson had battled it out in the jungles of Jharkhand and still probably; battles. 

3. Furthermore, myself and Gladson exchange each-others' writings; sometimes arguing differently. 

Dr. Binayak Sen

4. Not only I, but I guess many, know Dr Sen through the media. Our regard for him, his family and other activists spread around the Naxal heartland (Red Zone : RZ ) is shaped up from the news articles. And kudos to our higher judiciary (High Court at Raipur), that we now appreciate Dr Sen and his works with much veneration. 

5. Here, the question is of an 'award'. And I personally presume that we are coerced into this debate more so because the 'award' is being bestowed by a "phoren" organisation: and because the Father of the nation's name is associated with it. 

6. however, after Mr. Obama received the Nobel, do we really need to be serious regarding awards? At least, about awards which may not have objective analysis encrypted on them? 

7. As far as conferring the award to Dr Sen and Mr Imam goes, it surely was a decision taken by a coterie of sociologists, anthropologists and activists. It may not reflect the decision of the autochthonous Adivasis.

However, such a process is inherent in any award, ranging from the insignificant to the highest. Thus, the conferment does not elevate Dr Sen and Mr Imam as "messiahs" of the Adivasis. 

8. Furthermore, even if the Adivasis had 'voted' Sen and Imam for this award, the duo wouldn't have become their "messiahs" for a simple reason: the Adivasis have not bartered away their 'consciousness' to any external elite. 

Bulu Imam

9. The subaltern may be 'unheard' and 'unheeded'; but it is hard to 'unravel' and 'understand' him (her). 

A "Ulgulan" goes on as an undercurrent in the socio-economic and political strata of the country. It may be 'interpreted' by the external elite as an intricate set of matrices of insurgency and its reactionary counterpart; the counterinsurgency. 

10. In sum, Dr Sen and Mr Imam, as they receive the awards in November; will raise the issue of the complexities of the Red Zone in the world fora. That shall be the achievement of the whole process. 

11. Who receives the award on the dais is simply not important, the ramifications of the discussion on the age-old betrayal of the 'marginalised' in India would be significant. 

Gladson Dungdung

12. To my friend Gladson, I plea that we need to defocus on the actors receiving the award; rather stress on the issues and keep on working for the Adivasis; let them rejuvenate and let them come up as the real heroes. 

13. For the time being, if Sen and Imam go forward, so let it be. 

They have worked, so do you and many others. There are lot of unsung heroes in the Zone. In any movement, unsung heroes and heroines remain. We need to appreciate that it's not only those protagonists on whom the camera flashes are the real ones as 'reality' always needs a critical analysis. 

14. It could always be discussed why Sen and Imam did not lodge a protest to the Gandhi Foundation themselves as far as the original 'award script' was concerned. 

15. Nevertheless, it could elicit derision if Sen and Imam are threatened to be 'unmasked' and 'exposed'. 

16. Any narrative could lack objectivity because of the element of bias of the author. I do not expect anything dissimilar in this micro-narrative of mine; a sort of Op-Ed which I strictly believe would remain unpublished in any "mainstream" media. 

thanks to ALL who had the patience to bear with me this long

Uddipan Mukherjee

----------------------------------

Uddipan Mukherjee is a late riser. Still, he works 'very hard' to edit Indian Policy. By the way, he writes in diplostratics

India's looking east...

Almost two decades have elapsed after P V Narasima Rao authored India’s Look East Policy (LEP) in 1991. The pertinent question is today do we need any reform in the policy? Well, what is LEP and how it came into being? In light of the forthcoming visits of Vietnamese president Truong Tan Sang and Myanmarese president Thein Sein, Avijit Maity delves into the matter.

Brief History:

India’s look east did not commence with the then honourable Prime Minister PV Narasima Rao and his then Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh in 1991-2. India, in fact, looked towards their eastern neighbours long back. ‘Sadhava” merchants from ancient Kalinga (today’s Orissa) used to sail their “boitas” across “the seven seas and thirteen rivers”. This was during pre-Christian era.  This tradition is still celebrated in Orissa in the form of “Baliyatra” to commemorate the maritime exchanges with “Suvarnadwipas” and “swarnabhumis”.

During 11th and 12th century AD, the “Chola” kings like Raja Raja Chola, Rajendra Chola established maritime relationship with the East Asian countries. These maritime, political, economic and cultural exchanges continued unabated during medieval period when Muslim merchants often traded with the East. With the expansionist policy of the Britishers, the scope and contours of “India-East” relationship received a fillip. The habit of co-habitation got a start during the late 19th century and it was only in 1936 when “Burma” (today’s Myanmar) separated from India through Government of India Act, 1935.

Pandit Nehru, one of the greatest Internationalists and statesmen India ever had, pioneered some magnanimous acts like “Asia-African solidarity”, “Pan-Asian vision” and “Non-Alligned Movement”, inter alia, during the climacteric period of Cold War. His efforts got a major setback in two events – first in 1962 when China attacked India and second when Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Philippines joined South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) – a US-led military organization in 1965. Association of South East Asian Nation (ASEAN) was founded two years later in 1967 and since then ASEAN has become the foremost organization in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.

ASEAN:

It was formed on 8th August 1967 by 5 nation-states Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines and Singapore. With time, 5 more states joined the association and now it has 10 member states. It has an area of 4.46 million km², 600 million people and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $1.8 trillion. It was formed mainly to augment economic development, regional co-operation and socio-cultural development and is the mainstay of India’s LEP.

Indo-ASEAN relations:

In the initial years, India’s response towards ASEAN was mute. A tectonic change in terms of foreign policy came into vogue in the watershed year of 1991 which experienced end of cold war and concomitant collapse of United States of Soviet Russia (USSR). Narasima Rao and his close confidant Dr. Manmohan Singh, in order to forge a strong and sustainable relationship with East Asian states, initiated LEP. It, has, long been argued by the Indian scholars and diplomats to deepen relationship with East Asian states. This is because of the geo-strategic importance of the region, vacuum created in the aftermath of cold war and China’s increasing engagement with these nations.

India’s progress with ASEAN, a fact file:

1992 - Sectoral dialogue partner
1995 - Full dialogue partner
2002 - Summit partner [ Phnom Penh Summit ]

On the economic front, India has achieved a great success. Bilateral trade has gone up from $2.9 billion in 1993 to $43.90 billion in 2009-10. India exports amounted to $18.11 billion and our imports to $25.79 billion. India and ASEAN set a target of bilateral trade of $70 billion by end of 2012. A Framework Agreement for Comprehensive Economic Cooperation (CECA) was signed in 2005 and Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was signed in 2009 after negotiations of 6 years. India needs to expedite the ongoing processes to establish Free Trade in Services (FTiS) and investment.

In order to intensify people-to-people contacts, a “ASEAN India Media Exchange Programme” was initiated. The passage of Nalanda University Bill, 2010 by our parliament opened the floodgates of multinational interaction and exchanges. Renowned economist, Amartya Sen is the chairman of this project.

In today’s world, defense and terrorism add another dimension to all types of cooperation. India and ASEAN had signed a Joint Declaration on Cooperation to Combat International Terrorism in October 2003 in Bali. India first experienced threats from South Eastern waters when Indonesia threatened to open a battle front in Andaman and Nicobar islands in the Indo-Pakistan war in 1965. Indo-Bangladesh war in 1971 also witnessed US threats in the waters of Bay of Bengal. It is also alleged that China is deploying the “policy of encirclement” or weaving a “string of pearls” “to increase access to foreign ports and airfields, develop special diplomatic relationships, and modernize military forces that extend from the South China Sea through the Strait of Malacca, across the Indian Ocean, and on to the Persian Gulf.”So China’s threatening military presence cemented the idea of bolstering maritime defense cooperation. India holds regular naval exercises with the ASEAN countries in the Indian and pacific waters.

But China is already far ahead from India and India needs to work overtime to reach a competitive level. Our National Security Adviser Shivsankar Menon is of the opinion that China is trying to unify all north-eastern terrorist organizations in Myanmar. India’s recent bonhomie with Bangladesh forced all the terror outfits to find a safe haven in Myanmar and China is allegedly helping them to work against India.

ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and East Asian Summit (EAS):

ARF was formed in 1993 for mainly three reasons – first: evolving the Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), second: evolution of “preventive diplomacy” and third: for conflict management among the member states (currently it has 27 members). It has three-tiered processes- Track-I (governmental activities), Track I ½ (scholars and officials from member states in their personal capacity) and Track-II (completely nongovernmental forum for academics, scholars, researchers to interact in their private capacity). Since its genesis, it has been useful forum for regional development and multi-faceted cooperation. India became a member of ARF in 1995. India is currently engaged with ARF in many aspects, inter alia, peacekeeping, maritime security, cyber security, piracy, counter-terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

First EAS was held in Kuala Lumpur on 14th December, 2005. This is the brainchild of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad. It is formed for promoting free trade and commerce among the member-countries, energy security, climate change issues, capacity building, disaster management, cultural exchanges, and joint studies among others. India has prioritized EAS forum after its formation and participated each summit.

North East and ASEAN:

North East has always been trouble zone for New Delhi as most north-eastern states undergo insurgencies. Imposition of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 is resented by the people. Irom Sharmila’s hunger strike demanding Indian government to repeal the act since November 2000 is a telling example. Under-development, inability to penetrate the zone, misunderstanding the people, unemployment, governmental actions, inter alia, are primary causes for the resentment. LEP can have a wider impact on integrating north-east to the rest of India. Geographically East Asian states and north eastern states of India are very closely related. In fact, north-east is the bridge on the way to East Asia.

Several projects are already initiated. Mekong-Ganga Cooperation is in operation since November, 2000. India and Myanmar, in April 2008, signed an agreement on $120 million Kaladan multi-modal transit-cum-transport project. This is a highly ambitious project and envisages upgrading Sittwe port of Myanmar; development of a 225-killometer waterway between Sittwe and Setpyitpyin (Kaletwa) in Myanmar along the Kaladan, which flows from Mizoram; construction of a 62km road network from Setpyitpyin to Lawngtlai (a district in southwestern Mizoram), where the road will merge with the National Highway 54. Completion of the project can transform the economics of whole north-east.

LEP reforms?

India definitely needs to reform her LEP. It is, inarguably, a successful policy so far. But there are several areas where India needs to either initiate or prioritize.

1.  First to accelerate in implementing all ongoing projects. This is of paramount importance to expedite the processes involved in carrying out the work.

2.  People of north east need to be directly involved in formulating policy as well as in the implementation. This can bring a feeling of participation among the north-easterners. A political awareness among the people is to be created that LEP is for the people of north-east.

3.  Currently the world is experiencing a “double-dip” recession which is mostly concentrated in the west. East Asia, in this scenario, will be, ever than before, a zone of opportunity for all Indian entrepreneurs. The LEP should focus mainly on this economic prospect.

4.  High-level political visits need to be regularized. The political leaders should be accompanied by a band of economists, businessmen and people of letters.

5.  China has already ahead of India in many aspects. India needs to broad-base all of their baskets viz: economic, political and cultural. We need to have a competitive mindset in this regard.

6.  LEP should be reformed to allow spending more diplomatic effort for the east. Currently, maximum diplomatic efforts are being spent for out western neighbour. This trend has to be changed.

7.   India’s aspiration for global power and concomitant wish of a permanent seat in United Nations Security Council needs to be an essentially important part of LEP. LEP should focus in garnering necessary support of East Asia.

8.   As already mentioned, India has a rich history of engaging herself with East. All channels of history needs to be reopened, needs to be refreshed. Nalanda University project is definitely a great initiative. Some initiatives, like reinvigorating the ancient ports, religious expeditions to East Asia, exchanges of religious leaders, funding in projects which has links with India’s history could be taken into account.

A new enhanced and reformed LEP is the chief mainstay of India’s international aspiration. India is already a regional player in south-east Asia; but to become a superpower, we need to leverage all available opportunities. India has the 2nd largest population, is 2nd in terms of GDP growth, has 3rd largest army, and is 4th economy in Purchase Power Parity (PPP) terms. We have a young demography which most of the advanced economy including China, the fastest growing country in the world, lacks. But an UN-backed and Oxford-led study reveals that India has poor people than that of whole Africa. Eastern India and north-eastern India are mainly the poor states and LEP has the potential to change the economy of these states. That clearly portends that, India’s achievements were not, so far, inclusive. We have a lot of positives; just need to fine-tune the existing policy work in a better way.

A new LEP, will, in many ways, contribute to make India a superpower as well as attaining inclusive and sustainable growth.

---------------------------------------
Avijit Maity has bounced back with his take on India's Look-East policy. No wonder, it is high time that India does not only "Look East" but "Engage East". You can share your views with him at indianpolicy2010@gmail.com