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

Nepal-India relations

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/article2553629.ece

A vision for Nepal-India relations - Baburam Bhattarai

My visit to India, which begins today, has great historical significance.

Nepal is passing through a major political transition. We fought against feudal autocracy and monarchy, and for overall socio-economic transformation, for almost 60 years. At times, our movement was peaceful, and at times, violent. But the consistent goal was to abolish feudal autocracy and monarchy, and democratise the state and society. Ultimately, the major political parties — which included the Maoists and traditional parliamentary parties — reached an agreement in 2006 to overthrow the monarchy and institutionalise democracy through the Constituent Assembly (CA).

Peace, constitution and India

We succeeded in abolishing the monarchy, and ushering in a new democratic era in Nepal. We are now in the process of institutionalising achievements through the CA, accompanied by socio-economic transformation, and federal restructuring of the state. According to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed in November 2006, we are now trying to complete the specific task of army integration and other aspects of the peace process. We are also trying to complete the process of writing the Constitution through the CA. Only after wrapping up this entire process will these gains be institutionalised, and we will enter into a new era of democracy, change and development in Nepal.

The role of India in this process is crucial. Nepal and India share a very unique relationship. Nepal is sandwiched between two huge states of India and China. But we are virtually India-locked, as we have an open border on three sides. Most of our socio-economic interactions take place with India. Two-thirds of our annual trade is with India, while only 10 per cent is with China. Given this historic tilt towards India, our bilateral relationship is unique. When you have more interaction, you have more problems and more friction. At times, there are misgivings and misunderstandings on various issues — some are genuine, while others are born out of scepticism.

India played a positive role in the peace process in Nepal, and during our transition towards democracy. My visit, at this juncture when we are at the last stage of completing the peace process, assumes special significance. While the peace process is basically conceptualised and led by Nepali political forces, the goodwill of international forces, particularly our neighbours, is very important for its success.

Security and development

An important bilateral issue between Nepal and India is related to politics and security. Nepal virtually lies in the southern lap of the Himalayas, and shares borders with two huge states of Asia. This geopolitical reality has to be taken into account. Naturally, there would be political and security concerns of our neighbours which Nepal is committed to observe keeping in mind mutual interests. Nepal will not allow its soil to be used against the security interests of any of its neighbours. Another key issue is economic development and development of resources. In the present day world, the economy of every country is interlinked with that of others, especially neighbours. If we have to prosper, we can only prosper if we cooperate with each other. Poverty and underdevelopment in the neighbourhood will have a fallout, and hamper your own development.

India and China are developing at a fast pace. Nepal, lying between two fast-growing economies, cannot remain backward and under-developed. We will seek the cooperation of both our neighbours, especially India.

We have to find areas of economic co-operation for mutual benefit of India and Nepal. One major field is the exploitation of water resources for mutual benefit. The next is drawing in Indian investment to Nepal — we are committed to creating a conducive environment for investors and providing them security. The trade balance between our two countries has been quite skewed. Our trade deficit with India is quite huge. The import-export ratio is about 7:1, which is not sustainable. That is another area where we have to deepen our economic cooperation.

Personally, I have had the opportunity to get my education in India, and my area of interest has been economic development. I will try to utilise my relations developed over the years to enhance bilateral relations, especially designed towards maximising economic benefits for both sides.

If Nepal can develop faster, it can become a development partner for India. For India also, a more developed Nepal will be a better guarantee of its security as only with development, peace, and stability, there can be security. Security concerns cannot be treated in isolation, but must be viewed in totality. Security and economic development must be seen together.

Trust and goodwill

The visit to India is basically directed towards building a better understanding between the two countries and two peoples. In that sense, it is a goodwill visit.

My personal thrust would be to have a very free and frank discussion with my counterparts so that we can upgrade the relationship according to contemporary needs. The relations and agreements institutionalised in the 20th century may not be enough to meet the needs of the 21st century. Hence, the emphasis would be to develop our relations further, clear misgivings and misunderstandings that we have against each other, and sort out the problems left by history. When the subcontinent was colonised by the British, they left behind a legacy which has created friction among the nations of South Asia. We have to overcome that, and develop mutual relations in the changed time and context. Instead of harping on old disputes, Nepal would like to look forward, and create an atmosphere of cooperation.

There are certain political issues, which would need more discussions. We can engage on it freely and frankly, but they can be postponed for the future. The major thing is to build trust between our two countries, two governments, and two peoples. Once there is trust, and we are sensitive and empathise with each other, even the most difficult issues can be resolved amicably.

A new era

To reiterate, instead of pushing any specific agenda, I want to talk about all the issues in a friendly spirit, with the aim of conveying and understanding bilateral concerns. This will also be an opportunity to interact with those outside government, especially civil society, media, and intelligentsia. Given my long association with Delhi, I have several personal acquaintances there and look forward to renewing those relationships.

It is my strong conviction that my current visit to New Delhi will usher in a new era in our bilateral relations. Nepal is in the last phase of completing its peace process, and is about to enter a new phase of peace and development. Our new bilateral relationship, which will be based on a strong development dimension, can bring about peace and prosperity.

My dream is to have an inclusive democracy, sustainable peace and prosperity in this part of the world. Nepal will try to contribute its best to foster that relation among all the countries of South Asia. Nepal-India relations can be developed as a model of cooperation between neighbours. I am quite confident that after this visit, traditional misgivings between the different actors in Nepal and India will substantially be cleared, and a foundation for better partnership for development in the 21st century would be laid.

( H.E Dr. Baburam Bhattarai is the Prime Minister of Nepal. He arrives in New Delhi today, on his first bilateral visit after taking office .)

The major thing is to build trust between our two countries, two governments, and two peoples.

How to restore the government's credibility ?

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/article2532770.ece

(Vinod Rai is the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. This article is an edited excerpt, prepared by The Hindu , of the speech he delivered to young police officers at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy in Hyderabad on October 11, 2011.)

I wish to make three propositions today and seek your reactions on whether you agree and whether you are in a position to be a participant in ensuring that the All India Services regain their past glory.

First: That governance is at its lowest ebb. That the morale of the civil servants is low. That credibility of the government is at its lowest. That decision-making has become a casualty. Second: That this situation is deleterious for the nation. That too much is at stake for too many in such a situation. Third: On you and officers of the All India Services, among others, rests the onus to remedy the situation.

Why do I make my first proposition? We have Chief Ministers who have had to vacate their positions allegedly for graft, on whom courts and other judicial bodies have made adverse pronouncements. We have Union Cabinet Ministers who are in prison. We have Union Cabinet Ministers who have had to vacate their positions, allegedly on complaints of ill doing. We have Members of Parliament who are being indicted by the judiciary for various acts, including accepting cash for exercising their vote in Parliament and also seeking cash to ask questions in the House. In the civil service we have many examples. They are too many to merit counting now!

Today, we are facing a testing time in the history of our nation. The quality of governance is below par. There has been an erosion of people's faith in government. Their confidence in public institutions has declined. National trust in the bureaucracy, including the police force has collapsed. The integrity and professionalism of civil servants are being questioned. This has brought the credibility of the government to the lowest since Independence.

Can you and I stand up in the society and claim we belong to a service which administers this country with probity and efficiency? Most of us would not be able to convince ourselves that we are capable of being part of a legacy which provided this nation the foundations on which the edifice of good governance stood. And that is where the greatest challenge to the police force lies today, when the moral fabric of the nation seems to be tearing apart in the absence of an optimal governance system, characterised by a near total absence of accountability; where loyalty takes precedence over the sense of one's duty, and where national interests are often, and with impunity, subjugated to individual gains.

Today in some quarters there is sharp criticism of the police force for being perceived as principal violators of the law, exhibiting rude behaviour, abusive language, lack of professionalism and insensitivity towards victims of violent crimes. This perception has to be reversed. Public confidence in the police has to be restored. As leaders, you must change the mindset of the police force if you want to be seen as friendly, compassionate and sensitive to the genuine concerns of the people. This can happen only if we can substitute the ‘force' psychology that permeates significant sections of the police organisation with a ‘service' psychology.

Including the citizen

Now I come to my second proposition: Why do I say that too much is at stake for too many people? As all of you are aware, we are among the fastest growing economies of the world. This is indeed commendable. But, there is no room for complacency. We have to ensure smooth development and ‘inclusive growth'. Our actions will provide stability in the nation, thereby ensuring rapid economic growth. It is a poor commentary on our attempts to foster growth if 64 years after Independence we still believe Rs.32 defines a poverty line!

We are living in an era in which good governance has assumed primacy in public discourse as it is expected to lead to improvement in the quality of life of citizens. Ironically, the demand for good governance is entwined with the demand for less governance as well. However, it is universally agreed by all those propagating a minimal state approach that ensuring the security of the citizens is a primary duty of the state which cannot be diluted in any manner. The responsibility assigned to the members of the Indian Police Service is to make this a reality.

All of us in government must recognise that the citizen in our democracy has come centre-stage. He has become very discerning, demanding. Governance by use of force is no longer of any consequence.

No instrument or institution of the State can remain immune to the evolutionary process taking place in our society. The public demand for shift of power from bureaucrats to citizens has led to change of governance structures. In fact, there are even demands for sharing of the legislative functions by moving from a representative raj to direct people's raj . All these demands stem from an increased awareness of the citizen to participate in decisions relating to governance, development and welfare entitlements through decentralised governance structures.

In the audit arena, this is recognised through social audits, in which citizens are actively involved in planning and executing the audit and by disseminating the reports to the affected community. In the police force, this finds expression through the concept of community policing. I do not see this merely as a strategy to overcome the human resource shortage in our police forces or as a cost cutting measure. Rather, it is an act of faith in the capabilities of our fellow citizens to govern themselves. Each terrorist attack in our country is yet another grim reminder to us that extremist acts can be tamed only through active involvement of the public in management of security. You cannot find a better force multiplier than the one billion Indians ever willing to render a helping hand. However, this can succeed only if police officers are willing to shed traditional notions of policing and begin to consider the citizen as partners in law enforcement.

Not adversaries

My third proposition: The earlier we accept the need to promote change and innovation, the earlier we would have established the efficacy of the police service and, thereby, the credibility of government. This would restore public confidence in the state. And that is why I stand before you to request that you become the change agent.

All attempts to improve governance will come to naught if the agencies responsible for governance do not consider probity in public life and ethical behaviour as cardinal principles in their official dealings. In this, the police force and audit have a twin role to play. While we must ourselves maintain the highest standards of probity, both these agencies are also mandated to enforce such standards on those involved in public administration. Prevention, they say, is better than cure. Watchful, efficient and effective vigilance and auditing structures similarly minimise, if not prevent, threats to accountable administration of public funds. Internal decay is sometimes more dangerous to the prosperity of the nation than external aggression. The decay can emanate from the cancer of corruption, criminalisation of society or neglect of responsibilities. The police forces have a critical role in creating a national ethos that promotes public order and zero tolerance for corruption and criminal activities through discharge of their duties without fear or favour.

One of the oft-repeated criticisms against enforcement and accountability institutions is that they paralyse administration, kill initiative and reward votaries of the status quo. Such debates are common in our country today more than ever with a number of recently released reports by the Indian Audit and Accounts Department pointing out irregularities and the follow up action taken thereon by other law enforcement agencies.

These criticisms emanate from a mind-set that views accountability agencies as an adversary than as an aid to good governance and better management. While the primary responsibility of the audit institution is to report to Parliament about the proper utilisation of public funds, it is also conscious of the need for adding value to the audited organisation through its reports. Similarly, the restraining influence of the police forces on those elements of the society indulging in unethical and unlawful behaviour is also a critical factor for good governance.

There is, therefore, an urgent need to change the outlook on accountability initiatives, be it audit or law enforcement agencies, and respond to them as partners in ensuring orderly and efficient use of public funds, development of sound financial management and orderly execution of administrative and developmental activities.

Rather than paralysing the administration, as some critics say, good policing and auditing are an essential aid to good governance.

India & U.S. at U.N

During India's first nine months on the Security Council, it has worked with the U.S. on broad themes but often differed on country-specific issues. Council membership has a price: many votes inevitably disappoint some of India's constituencies and international friends.

When U.S. President Barack Obama announced in Delhi that the United States looked forward to “a reformed U.N. Security Council that includes India as a permanent member,” he was met with thunderous applause. This was the most tangible form of U.S. support for India's ambition to be recognised as a major global player. From the U.S. perspective, it was an act of faith. The U.S. and India have always had a harder time working together in the multilateral arena than they do bilaterally, and the United Nations has been especially tough.

How do things look nine months after India joined the Security Council for a two-year term? Finding ways to work together has been a challenge for both countries. India has also had to deal with the costs of being in the limelight — the public choices that come with Council membership, and that inevitably disappoint some constituencies and some international friends.

India and the U.S. have worked most closely together on what one Indian observer called “thematic issues.” Peacekeeping has been an area of strong India-U.S. cooperation for years. This reflects not just India's standing as one of the top three troop contributing countries, but also its strong professional contributions to the U.N.'s peacekeeping capacity. These have earned strong U.S. support and appreciation. Similarly, control of small arms has been a good area for cooperation.

India's time on the Security Council has expanded the list of broad policy themes where the U.S. and India make common cause. Counter-terrorism is an especially important one. The Indian permanent representative to the U.N., Hardeep Singh Puri, sought the chairmanship of the Security Council's Counter Terrorism Committee, and went about guiding its work in a serious way. This included deepening its links to the expert panel that works with it, the Counter Terrorism Executive Directorate. On September 28, Mr. Puri orchestrated a celebration of the committee's work in the 10 years since its creation, an event that provided the opportunity both for garnering civil society support for the group and for good coverage in the Indian press. U.S. policy-makers support this effort, appreciate the results, and look forward to further collaboration in this area.

The more contentious broad themes have to do with trade. These come up more often in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) than at the U.N. The U.S. and India have a strained relationship in the WTO, in spite of extensive efforts at high-level consultations.

When it comes to country-specific issues, however, U.S.-India interaction at the U.N. is more difficult. The Security Council's agenda always contains a large number of debates and resolutions on the Middle East, where the U.S. and India start from different policy positions. The large majority of resolutions passed this year were adopted unanimously. This included some uncontroversial measures on Libya, Afghanistan, and extension of an expert committee established in conjunction with the Security Council's decision on sanctions for Iran.

Of those where voting was contested, however, the U.S. and India were on opposite sides most of the time. On Libya, India abstained on a March 17 resolution establishing a no-fly zone, together with Brazil, Russia, China and Germany. The resolution was strongly supported by the U.S., and passed with the remaining 10 votes.

Somewhat to India's discomfiture, Syria came up during India's term as Security Council president in August. India was clearly pleased that the conclusion of the council's debate took the form of a council president's statement rather than a formal resolution. This obviated the need for a formal vote for or against. However, India found itself directly at odds with the U.S. in the October 4 vote defeating a Syria resolution that had been under discussion for some three months. India abstained, along with Lebanon, Brazil and South Africa. Russia and China vetoed. The council's other Muslim-majority country, Bosnia, voted yes, together with the U.S. and seven other members.

The most contentious of the country issues before the council this year is Palestine. India co-sponsored a resolution on Israeli settlements, eventually vetoed by the U.S. This type of “split vote” has become routine — the other 13 Security Council members also voted for it. Much more troublesome for the U.S. was India's pledge to vote in favour of U.N. membership for Palestine. The application was eventually referred to the Security Council committee that reviews membership applications, amid speculation that the Palestinian Authority had tacitly agreed to slow the process down. But of all the hot-button issues for the U.S., this was the most difficult. Washington had announced that it would if necessary use its veto to block a Palestinian membership application outside of the framework of the stalled peace negotiations with Israel. However, the U.S. was urgently seeking a way to sidestep the issue and avoid the damage to its relations in the Muslim world that would follow a veto. India's early public stance, along with the other potential “yes” votes for full Palestinian membership, thus put Washington in a potentially painful and embarrassing situation.

Country issues before the Security Council generate far more political passion than broad policy themes. This has two consequences. For the U.S., negative consequences of India-U.S. differences are felt further up the political ladder, and with greater intensity, than the positive vibrations from Indo-U.S. cooperation on such broad issues as peacekeeping and counter-terrorism. India's position on the Palestinians, on Syria, or on Libya was in keeping with many years of Indian policy toward the Middle East, and was clearly not intended as a rebuff to the U.S. But from Washington's perspective, the fact that India and the United States so rarely line up together on the U.N.'s “hot button” issues is troublesome.

From Delhi's perspective, the country-specific issues confront India's policymakers with the costs of being in the multilateral limelight. Security Council members cast votes in a highly visible forum, on very specific issues, with the full glare of international publicity. Often, these votes force India to choose, not whether to accept international criticism for its position, but which of its friends to anger. In the first third of its Security Council tenure, India has generally sided with the U.S. on issues that are important but not passionate; it has taken the other side on issues that generate greater political heat.

Interestingly, while there is strong consensus in India that the country deserves a permanent Security Council seat, one occasionally hears ambivalence about how useful the seat would be and how much policy priority it deserves. Former government officials occasionally muse that “club membership” carries more costs than benefits. Neither the Manmohan Singh government nor any successor, however, is likely to back away from this campaign.

Assessing the benefits to India of Security Council membership is a complicated exercise. Achieving recognition as a global player is an important policy goal in its own right. But when one looks for the vision of global governance that India seeks to advance, the picture is clouded. Policy documents and analyses from Indian academics speak in familiar terms of defending sovereign states against interventionism and of creating a world order in which poor countries are as able as rich ones to make their voices heard. But the role that many Indians are most comfortable with draws heavily on the concept of “sovereign autonomy” — balancing powers that seem too strong, and relishing a solo role where possible.

This is hard to do in the multilateral arena, where successful diplomacy relies on giving others credit and on the constant building and rebuilding of coalitions. India's diplomats are among the world's best at navigating U.N. procedures, and are masters of the drafting process. Nonetheless, apart from its skillful stewardship of the Counter Terrorism Committee, it is not clear that India has been a major broker of contested issues in the Security Council itself. The August statement on Syria, for example, seems to have been largely orchestrated by Brazil and France.

India has decades of practice in building support in the Non-Aligned Movement, an important constituency for it at the U.N. (Interestingly, there is a special tab on the website of India's U.N. mission devoted to the NAM.) It has come to rely more heavily on more selective groups, notably BRICS (with Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa). All these countries are on the Security Council in 2011. It is perhaps significant that BRICS accounted for all but one of the abstentions on the Libya and Syria resolutions. Working in coalition with the U.S. is a more unfamiliar pursuit. India's goal of a larger global role would be well served by adding this to its repertoire.

The U.N. is of course not the only multilateral forum where the U.S. and India work together. Their relations have been more harmonious in the G-20 and the multilateral development banks — and more difficult, as noted, in the WTO. It would be naïve to expect these two large countries, whose interests are closer than before but still have important differences, to line up in lock-step in any multilateral organisation. But their ability to manage their differences and find mutual accommodation on a reasonable share of country-specific issues as well as big foreign policy themes will be an important test of how well their partnership can work outside the strictly bilateral realm.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/article2519376.ece