Decrypting the fortunes of theocracy

Post-Uri terrorist attack, the media glares were focused on what the most powerful man of India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi would say on Pakistan. Albeit, he chose a political rally to convey his displeasure to “Terroristan” (An analogy shared by noted author Chetan Bhagat for Pakistan), but the message was disseminated proportionately to satisfy the thirst of hawks on both sides of ‘Line of Control’, the self-proclaimed liberals, rationality bearers, non-ideological citizens as well as international stakeholders.

Amidst the conspicuous glow of tensions surrounding the decades old adversaries, a larger question remains unanswered. “Why do the nations born with a religious premise are far more unstable and volatile than the nations born with secularism as their core value?”
To understand this fundamental question, we shall take a look at what exactly we mean by a ‘nation’?

In The Ethnic Origins of Nations (1986), Anthony Smith presents the ‘primordialist view’ which states that the nations are historically embedded; they are rooted in a common cultural heritage and language that may long predate the achievement of statehood or even the national independence.

Does this cultural heritage necessarily mean religious homogeneity? How far has it been successful? It has been observed in post-colonial era that the nations which derive the legitimacy of their authority on religious foundation often found themselves trapped into the quagmire of a deep moral conflict.

The diagnosis of the problem does not require vigorous crystal ball gazing but a narrow understanding of history. Various reasons can be attributed to the issue, such as: -

Firstly, as the foundation of the State is based on the spirit of intolerance, hence the breeding of sleazy animosity and fissures within the society is easy with no diverse ideological and philosophical apparatus to neutralize such threats.

Secondly, these inbuilt theocratic impulses offer resistance to change within the society, which in turn renders intellectual development, modernity, innovation and spiritual growth ineffective.

Thirdly, it is easy to radicalize and manipulate the population because of lack of alternative source of opinions. This further ignites the fire of distrust and disharmony in the homogeneous society.

Fourthly, the debate regarding material economic progress is impounded by the forces of irrationality and religious orthodoxy claiming monopoly over decision making. Moreover, the State in such societies is mostly subservient to the dictates of the latter pressure groups, pushing the ‘Base and Superstructure’ theory of Karl Marx into obsoleteness.

Fifthly, the spirit of homogeneity of society makes it difficult to adapt the opportunities of globalization and liberalization which propagate the heterogeneous structures of society in an interconnected world. The results of such disconnect is evident from the emerging violence in the developed world, allegedly carried out by the alienated communities.

Sixth, as the religious sphere cycles through the phases of downfall and precipitation due to the inevitable circling of the clock, the State too gets deformed because of lack of availability of alternative forces of unification which are either unrepresented or underdeveloped in such societies.

Seventh, due to the prevalence of radical nobility, the fundamental rights of liberty, equality and fraternity are impaired with irrational theocratic discourses, which ultimately paralyses the dialectical progress that germinates diversity of opinions and synthesis of such opinions in consistently changing social dynamics. The acceptance of diversity of opinion broadens intellectual horizon and facilitates conflict resolution through multiple fashions. But its absence due to the homogeneous structure of society consequently submerges such States under the tides of anarchy.

Last, but not the least, the dominance of religious orthodoxy also impairs the accountability of the State towards the populace and any question of impropriety is settled with the deliberations of maintaining religious status-quo under the garb of threat to the religion. Hence, it proves that democracy and theocracy are non-complementary and the existence of such political associations could be a farce.

The forces of partition ignited the idea of States based on religion. On one side, the belligerence which established Pakistan celebrated the idea of ‘Islamic Republicanism’. The other side, albeit pressured by the hawks of religious supremacy, adopted for a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic guided by the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity to secure social, economic and political justice for all irrespective of belief, faith and worship.

As the Prime Minister today spoke to the belligerent hawks of Pakistan, “If you want to fight a war, we accept the challenge. Let us fight against poverty, unemployment, undernourishment, injustice, griminess and diseases. Let us see who wins the war first.”

India throws ultra dynamic diplomatic card on the Chinese table

India issued visa to multiple Chinese dissidents like Dolkun Isa, Lu Jinguha, Ray Wong to attend the 'World Uyghur Congress' in Dharamsala with the Tibetan exiled leader 'HH Dalai Lama' among others. The controversy surrounding the sudden ultra offensive stance by India against China in terms of reversing the policy on internal non-interference evoked nationalist muscularities. But the delight was short-lived with India cancelling the issued visas on technical grounds. This on-and-off relationship evoked strong criticism from the puerile as well as nationalist ranks. Indian media as usual started reading between the lines from the writings on the wall to assimilate their little understanding of the issue by playing rhetorical series to invoke ultra nationalism. But does it really mean that India itself co-opted a 'planned embarrassment'?

Prudential diplomacy requires understanding the weather patterns before the clouds start to rain. The identification of the characteristics of the clouds on the basis of amount of moisture it contains, capability to create 'thunderstorms' and understanding the 'white-wool like structure' requires abandonment of foolish consistencies. India judiciously applied the 'paradox of value' of Adam Smith in political terms by trading the opportunity of China's veto to Masood Azhar's banishment (being water in Smith's value paradox) with the border agreement with China (being diamond in Smith's value paradox). But how? India cunningly created panic among the Chinese policy makers by signalling a policy shift to accommodate pro-democracy and Uyghur activists from the volatile Xinjiang province under its umbrella. But the sweetness of the deal lies in the fact that they were not allowed to touch the soil, thereby keeping the Chinese to anticipate the possible ramifications of India's future contingency plans like this. Like virginity, a card once played loses its value. Hence, the subtlety dictates keeping the cards closed and keep the foe guessing.

As ends justify the means, the result of such diplomatic overtures can be judged victorious if we happen to secure some legitimate long-term interests vis-à-vis China. A long pending approval to negotiate border agreement, trade disputes and strategic interests should have been secured on the basis of reciprocity of such a generous gesture from our side. The controversy came amidst the visit of our National Security Advisor 'KC Ajit Doval', who is also the plenipotentiary of the Prime Minister on the bilateral negotiations on the border agreement. It is not hard to understand who, how and why dictated such an act of a 'planned embarrassment' and pushed the Ministry of External Affairs in fire-fighting, probably after securing overdue long term interests. A short-term 'perceived embarrassment' may sometimes become inevitable to secure long-term gains. But a cautious approach advises India to keep the Chinese dissidents in close confidence and exploit the opportunities available through them optimistically.Dynamics of diplomacy are surely hard to understand and the usual writings on the wall may not secure legitimate interests due to the ever-changing potentialities of the adversaries and the allies alike. Albert Einstein says 'insanity' is doing one thing again and again and expecting different results every time. Therefore, to quote Mr Doval, “India has a mentality to punch below its weight. We should not punch below our weight or above our weight, but improve our weight and punch proportionately.”

Focus on Iran-Israel relations for a stable West Asia

 

From the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 until the Iranian Revolution and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, Israel and Iran maintained close ties. Actually Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel, as a sovereign state after Turkey. Israel too viewed Iran as a natural ally and a non-Arab power on the edge of the Arab world, in accordance with David Ben Gurion’s concept of an alliance of the periphery. After the ‘Six-Day’ war of 1967, Iran supplied Israel with a significant portion of its oil needs and Iranian oil was shipped to European markets via the Israeli-Iranian pipeline.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 to overthrow the regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became the point of conflict where Iranian revolutionists took a hard stance of anti-Zionism. Even post Iranian revolution, Israel helped Iran with logistical and military support during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980, despite Ayatollah Khomeini’s declaration of Israel as the ‘enemy of Islam’ and the ‘Little Satan’ (US being the ‘Great Satan’). Israel even convinced the Ronald Reagan administration to allow Israel to channel arms of US origin with it to support Iran against the barbaric attacks of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Israel also destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad, giving a strategic advantage to Iran over Iraq.

The relations started to turn sour with the statements by the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini and his decisive anti-Zionist stance and by his successor Khamenei to consolidate domestic support which is otherwise on wane. The same goes for the other democratically elected authorities in Iran like the President, especially during the President Mahmud Ahmedinijiad’s term. He discontinued the velvet glove policy of former President Mohammad Khatami and instead adopted an offensive stance against Israel with openly nurturing Shia-Islamist group and political party in Lebanon, HEZBOLLAH. This infuriated Israel and the previously warm relations turned hostile with both sides attacking each other since then (Beunos Aires blasts on Israeli Embassy in 1992, 2006 Lebanese war, successive Gaza wars, 2010 assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, 2010 Stuxnet worming in Iran’s Natanz enrichment plant, 2012 Bulgarian bombings by Hezbollah militants to the latest 2015 explosions in Jarmana, near Damascus). Since decades, Israel has been accusing Iran for supporting Hezbollah and Syrian Government to perpetuate anti-Zionist propaganda and war to threaten the peaceful existence of Israel, whereas Khamenei has accused Israel of supporting JUNDALLAH in Balochistan (West Pakistan), a Sunni militant group targeting Iran.

The bonhomie relationship which turned to a ‘fire and sword’ hostility for each other needs to cool down for a peaceful West Asian future. The responsibility of the same lies with the immediate governments, to blend the public mood and extinguish the fire of suspicion to bloom the flower of peace between the two old friends. The world must realize that the deep mistrust between these two rivals is fueling the fire in the West Asian region and allowing the other non-stakeholders to take disproportionate advantage of the conflict to strengthen their illegitimate power structure. Wahhabism emanating from West Asia is a major global threat which is riding on the wave of conflict between Iran-Israel. US President Barack Obama made a good start with Iran through the nuclear deal, which was opposed by Israel and Saudi Arabia alike. But to my Israeli friends, I must suggest that they should exploit the opportunity of improving the relations with Iran during the term of moderate Government of President Hassan Rouhani in Iran. They should understand that Ariel Sharon believed it was important to "leave a small window open" to the possibility of good relations with Iran in the future. Simultaneously, it is the duty of the Rouhani Government to ensure peace with Israel by exploiting the huge public mandate acquired by his political party in the recent general election in Iran, by keeping the radical forces at bay.

Stemming of confrontation and unilateralism to accommodate compromise, negotiation and collaboration (especially between Iran and Israel) is the need of the hour for the West Asian political conflicts. Suspicion and deep hostilities amongst the rivals have already burnt the entire West Asian subcontinent from the last few decades. This opportunity to accommodate conflicting views and dispatching of medieval confrontations might lead to a peaceful coexistence of people in the West Asia. Shall India be the plank to bridge the gap between the two rivals? If yes, then how?

Let's tolerate the intolerance for a while.

In the last few days, there has been an upsurge in political maneuvering over the communal tensions that have been witnessed sporadically in India or to say in peculiar states. It has been alleged that since Mr Narendra Modi assumed the leadership of the country, the communal elements which were in hibernation mode before May 2014, have popped out in the open. It is also alleged that the Prime Minister who is generally vocal about all the issues and even non-issues has adopted a blind eye towards such incidents. Also there are some who retaliate to such aspersions on the Prime Minister with a counter-allegation of agenda driven ‘selective outrage’. But amidst all this political crusading of allegations and counter-allegations, the larger question remains unanswered. The question that remains hidden in the subconscious is that even if the ‘most communal person’ has assumed the leadership of the country, still does the ‘idea of India’ allow us (as Indians) to be manipulated strong enough to kill the ‘Indianness’ of ours and let the community driven identity to dominate our national identity?

Personally speaking, I completely reject the above notion. India was not coerced to be secular but we all in one clamour demanded it in independent India, especially after witnessing the perils of constant communal tensions during the British Imperialist rule. Unfortunately, there is hardly any family in India even today whose forefathers did not witness the rampant destruction of communalism during the British rule. That is why we yearned to be secular to keep the communal forces at bay. Therefore, the ‘idea of India’ cannot be identified by a handful of ‘anti-national’ people, and it is much beyond the storms of communalism. I call the communalists as anti-national because they have allowed their national identity to be dominated by their communal identity, therefore consciously/unconsciously surrendering their nationality. So, the argument that the regime change had promulgated communalist ideas is both bogus and elementary. Yes, we can take the same argument at face value, only if you are willing accept that you failed to bridge the identity gaps in the society in the last 68 years. If you failed to unite the diverse population under one national identity, then the fault lies in you and not the contemporary dispensation. The acceptance of the above argument implies that the political and social ideologies that ruled India for the last 68 years failed miserably in establishing a national identity amongst the population. So, the acceptance of your argument reinstates the current demand of replacing the erstwhile feeble-minded political and social ideologies with something that suits our contemporary demands.

It is said that the only thing constant is change, but unfortunately this change in Indian political ideologies did not arrive in the last 68 years. One party dominance, one ideology dominance, one society dominance and monopoly over power and decision making for 68 years crippled the country's intellectualism. So, the counter-argument that this ‘Award Wapsi Drama’ is nothing but the dying groans of a political ideology that enjoyed monopoly in India since independence stands logical. It is natural that any change, especially such a big ideological change would invite stiff resistance from the erstwhile monopoly holders. They would use every political tool left in their bag to resist the change and demean the relevance of the new ideology, no matter how progressive or regressive the new one is, which itself is a separate issue to debate. In French Assembly of 1789, there were three political wings i.e. Left, Centre and Right but later on, the neo-left and neo-right emerged which were also called Centre-Left, Centre-Right. Contemporarily we all know that moderation is the key to effectively govern a society and politics in every society is very different from another. Not just this, but politics in one society at one time is very different from the politics in the same society at any other given time. Therefore, such allocation of groups of left, right and centre do not effectively project the exact political scenarios and are static propositions. In the context of Indian political scenario, the ‘so-called’ left wing enjoyed monopoly over Indian society, ranging from publishing one eyed history books, political science studies, economic studies and precisely all major decision making at the highest echelons. It effectively resisted all the changes to its monopoly by minuscule reforms in itself (neo-left emergence) till the augmentation of 21st century, when the economic situation, guided by sub-prime crisis and other major economic hardships enlightened people of the country to smash the opaqueness of left wing or the neo-left wing and try out the right wing political ideology. Such a major change was augmented by the failure of neo-leftists to predict and prevent economic hardships and political and bureaucratic corruption that socialism carries with it as a heavy baggage. India which was suppressed by such hardships looked for an opposite camp (right-wing) which promised economic prosperity and political and bureaucratic reform. It also ignited the nationalistic upsurge among citizens by highlighting ‘glorious history’ and presented a positive ray amidst the atmosphere of failure. As the left-wing in our society reformed itself from time to time to resist a major change and transformed itself to what is known as neo-left today. It could do this only because it was in power for the last 68 years and the dialectical method of hypothesis presented a contemporary, reformed and new or neo-left wing to the people, even though it was still rejected by the people due to obvious failures. Today’s Right wing stands at the 1947 era and wants it to be compared with the 1947 era left wing, which is obviously nonsensical to do. But the reason behind such regressiveness is that the Right wing never got into power and therefore it never got the chance to rectify its loopholes through constructive criticism. Therefore, the need of the hour is to let the right wing to adjust itself with the passage of time and give constructive criticism to make it more suitable to our needs.

The proposition that the elevation of a certain leader to the chair of the Prime Minister has invited such atmosphere is both flawed and myopic. In 19th century, an Italian social scientist, Vilfredo Pareto gave the theory of ‘Circulation of Elites’, the axiom of which states that the changes of regime, revolutions, and so on occur not when rulers are overthrown from below, but when one elite replaces another. In simple terms, when one ruler (elite) vacates his seat, another ruler (elite) acquires the same. Therefore, such process of replacement occurs within a group of elite and there is an agreed upon prohibition for the entry of others from the heterogeneous society. In the context of India, when a leader from a very humble background assumed power with such a thumping majority, breaking all the records of the past, infiltrating the elite territory with pride, responsibility and determination to reform each and every section of the society and to put an end to all socio-economic hardships, the club of the elites could not digest it. As I mentioned earlier that there is a general prohibition to enter the club, therefore it is almost unacceptable for the elite club members to jeopardize their monopoly over power to the hands of a ‘non-elite’. In India, this elite group, studied from Oxford, Harvard, St Stephens, Cambridge and others could not see the end to their monopoly over power and that too for over 5 years. The members of the club are afraid that this non-elite would break the backbone of the elites and control the power structure for another 10-15 years which obviously means an end to the return of elitists in power in future also. Therefore, the elites from both opposition and from the ruling party got together to defame the person with their maneuvers to those who identify themselves with community and not the nation. It is easy to manipulate them according to our needs. Generally, someone who attains power automatically enters the elite club, but in Indian context the definition of elite club is quite different and they cannot stand to be ruled by non-elite. It is up to us, the people to understand this strategy and act as if we want to disband this elite club or to be ruled by them even in the years to come.

The ever-expanding dream of India is not forlorn enough to be threatened by a single person, nor is it so regressive that it would fail to accommodate a new ideological change. It is high time that we realize the truth behind the uproar and not get swayed by the highly irresponsible Indian media. This is a battle of ideologies, a battle of elite and non-elite but most importantly, this is the battle of ‘Unity’ and ‘Diversity’.

P.S. – Over the years we emphasized on the ‘Diversity’ part more than the ‘Unity’ one in the self-made phrase of ‘Unity in Diversity’. It is high time to put the same in our to-do list and rectify the same through the undergoing changes in Indian political and social structure.

India’s Foreign Relations and Their Effect on Its Peace and Security

Foreign policy showcases a country’s outlook towards the world as well as the outlook of the world towards it. It strengthens the nation’s frontiers, establishes its prominence as well as secures it domestically to comfortably implement domestic policies and plans. It has been of relevance since ancient times and is carried forward with successive additions and subtractions in its method to secure pre-planned goals.

In the case of India, it started inadvertently with the offset of World War I & II, when the soldiers of Indian army fought neck to neck with the allied forces to keep the central as well as axis powers at bay, respectively. Such moments of intimate bonding at the time of crisis deepened our relationship with the allied participants and secured us long time goodwill. Simultaneously, the participation of few sections of our Indian independence struggle soldiers in the Axis powers to fight against the British Empire secured us good relations with the other side. Socialist as well as communist leanings of our revolutionaries secured close proximity towards erstwhile USSR, Eastern Europe as well as China to some extent. India participated and became the founder member of the United Nations, therefore giving a voice to the cause of independence and securing the trust of international community to protect human rights abuse by the colonial masters. With the advent of the period of decolonization, India secured a hand of friendship with almost all colonized countries ranging from Asia to Africa and thus, India became a virtual leader of the so-called ‘Third World’ because of our participation in their struggle for independence. After India secured independence, our foresighted forefathers decided to stay as a member of the ‘Commonwealth’ grouping, thereby securing us the forum dedicated especially for the United Kingdom’s colonies to strengthen our foreign policy objectives.

How did we secure our interests in the dynamic and fast changing world of that era? The biggest pragmatic move was to announce and establish a forum of ‘Non-Alignment’ with likeminded countries, which established an independent policy towards the bipolar world and thereby quashing the superimposed congruency and dictates of the powerful blocs. It virtually established a third world with India as its leader. Since independence era, India did not support of setting up any pre-conditions for the establishment of bilateral relationships and therefore, we treated everyone equally well, regardless of their political structure. Non-alignment, non-interference, non-colonizer attitude secured us the trust of the marginally snubbed countries, having an insatiable hunger to make them heard in multilateral forums like the United Nations. We carried their voice and tried to secure equality in international operations.. By establishing a close relationship with USSR, we maintained a regional balance of power that helped us during 1965 and 1971 wars and Pokhran nuclear tests in 1974 especially. No first-use policy of nuclear warheads secured us a tag of being a ‘responsible nuclear capable’ nation. In the case of neighbors, India supported the offset of democratic transitions, secured human rights and promulgated peaceful coexistence among the South Asian neighborhood. ‘Gujral doctine’ reinstated our belief in non-interference, no big brother attitude, prominence to bilateral talks as well as mutual trust and respect between India and its neighbors. India’s relations with the West Asia (and Middle East) ensured strengthening of bilateral ties with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and independent relationships with all the major players in the region and a special support for the cause of Palestine, since 1950s. The goodwill earned during decolonization days and our support for their freedom struggle secured good relationship with the African Union and frequent high level visits as well as Indian technical and monetary support to the region reassures our commitment to the African prosperity. As a fellow member of the BRICS power bloc, India established good relations with not just Brazil but with the whole South American and Caribbean nations which dates back to erstwhile USSR days. Special emphasis on establishing ties with Japan and other South East Asian nations; even to the commonality of struggle against undemocratic Chinese muscle flexing has secured us high respect in the region. India’s relationship with Oceania and Pacific Islands group were strengthened by Commonwealth participation as well as the presence of huge and prosperous Indian Diaspora in the region. Friendship and peace treaties with USSR secured us good relationship with the Eastern Europe and historical relationship with the United Kingdom and Germany, and colonization experience of Dutch, French and Portuguese secured us the trust of West European nations. But in modern times, trade with the European Union guides our relationship to a level of prosperity and mutual trust and respect. In the nut-shell, India secured a well established and goodwill oriented relationship with most parts of the world.

Then, where does the problem lie? Despite establishing and maintaining strong relationship bilaterally as well as multilaterally with the world community, India failed to secure the trust of the South Asian region which is our immediate neighborhood. The region still sees us with an eye of doubt and tries to unite against our ‘perceived’ big brother attitude. Mishandling of bilateral relationship with Pakistan and China from both sides have led to huge suspicion and establishment of power blocs in the South Asian as well as Indian Ocean region. Sometimes, there has been sluggish response to foreign policy threats emanating from our neighborhood from the undemocratic muscle flexing of the adversaries. We also failed to secure prosperity in the South Asian region that may have circumscribed the violence, drug and human trafficking as well as terrorism issues. The sluggish response to the diplomatic moves of our undemocratic adversaries have forced us to open the Indian Ocean for the participation of non-regional members in the name of joint maritime and naval exercises. Our sense of care is being perceived as internal interference which is breeding lack of trust which pushes forward political imbalances and gives huge bargaining power to our neighbors at the cost of our strategic autonomy. Going beyond the region, expectants in the South East Asian regions are gradually disavowing our leadership to secure channels of trade and communication through the South China Sea. India has failed to secure substantial outcomes in its quest to admit itself as the permanent member of the reformed United Nations Security Council. Less emphasis to the volatile regions such as Africa as well as South America and Caribbean is pushing us backward to years in our foreign policy objectives, keeping in mind that these regions could become the next bone of contentions due to the presence of immense natural resources there.

But what are the material responses to our foreign policy that may ultimately help us secure peace and stability in the region as well as domestically? The clear cut policy of India to disengage itself from the political conflict of Sunni-Shia in the West Asian region has secured us long term peace and stability in our region, especially in domestic politics. Non-membership (permanent) in the UNSC has allowed us to abstain from expressing our views on the issues confronting the world community, which otherwise could have had strategic implications on our foreign policy. Being the largest defence equipment importer in the world, India has successfully secured long term peace and domestic stability because interference in India could jeopardize the largest defence market in the world. India has successfully secured a semi-permanent system of alliances to establish a strong balance of power in the Indian Ocean as well as South Asian region, especially to counter the undemocratic rise of China.

But still there is an existence of multiple lacunas in our foreign policy objectives that may prove detrimental to our interests in the future. Strong worded protests to the political structure of Nepal have bred an anti-India feeling among the locals of Nepal, even though India wants to save it from replicating the historical Sri Lankan blunder. Mishandling of relationship with Pakistan from both sides has promulgated suspicion and jeopardized security in the region and most importantly activated the secessionist elements in domestic politics. Over-enthusiasm to establish diplomatic and military cooperation with the West has put our relations with our long term ally, Russia at stake. Little emphasis on the African continent has allowed vested interests to breed in the region which are threatening our strategic interests there. Such vested interests are virtually neo-colonizing the region and embezzling precious natural resources from the region.

The contemporary world is marching towards a diplomatic shift in alliances with the emergence of multiple strong participants in the field of diplomacy. In order to secure our strategic interests in the region as well as in multilateral forums, we need to expand our horizons to include far off and left over places, otherwise the dream of a reformed UNSC would be a ‘faux pas’. For India to take the lead of the region in multilateral forums, promulgating our soft power diplomacy by including various stakeholders and establishing people-to-people contacts even with the world of violence and rampage is required. The road to prosperity passes through the diplomatic channels of communication and ends with securing our strategic interests worldwide. The roads ahead look rosy but before the petals dry, let us travel through it cautiously to achieve our desired objectives.

Democracy is India’s Achilles’ Heel

Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as the ‘rule of the people, by the people and for the people’. It has been proclaimed as the ideal form of the government because it keeps check on the actions of the executive.

The emergence of democracy can be traced back to many centuries ago, with the securing of certain rights in a document called ‘Magna Carta’ by the people of United Kingdom from their monarchy. The Greek philosophers too have staked their claim on gifting democracy to the people of the world. Indian intellectuals like Dr. Shashi Tharoor have rejected the claim of Western political thinkers regarding the foundation of democracy in West and have submitted the claim that democracy was practiced in Ancient India itself, signaling our strong roots of democracy. But the most plausible argument lies in the fact that there was no such thing as a ‘static system of democracy’. It is a dynamic idea into which various structures and features were added, subtracted and made permanent to form a basic structure of the democracy. This dynamic idea is still growing and will continue to grow forever with thesis and anti-thesis in its way. The struggle for independence and securing of semi-democratic concessions from the British in the form of Charters and Acts are all included in the dynamic addition in the basic structure of democracy.

Did India benefit from being a democratic nation? It surely did and apart from securing various rights from the State, the most important achievement of adopting a democratic system of governance is that it taught our people, the ‘art of questioning’. This art of questioning secured social, political and economic rights for our people. Even this evolution is in progress, people are demanding rights even till now and would continue to demand them with time, with an increase in the aspirations of the people. Democracy is the reason why we talk about ‘inclusion’ and give up the idea of exclusivity, whether it is political or economic (financial inclusion). The multi-way unrestricted communication in a productively dialectical method has resolved multiple issues in the journey and has polished the ethos of democracy itself. The emergence of a secular state is no surprise in a democracy where the aspirations of even the minutest of a community is respected and promoted. This is because of democracy alone, that the poor living in the remotest town of the country raises his own or collective voice and threatens the government if his/her constitutionally sanctioned demands are not met. In a pessimistic assumption of non-acceptance of his demands, he always has the option to consult the judiciary and secure his rights from the State. The universal adult franchise has promulgated not just political equality but social equality too which in turn kick-starts the process of economic equality in the future. The affirmative action to secure a decent standard of living for the subaltern class was possible only in a democracy. Not just for the citizens, but for the governance too, democracy has been an ideal method. It has circumscribed errors due to multiple checks and balances which have further promoted a rational decision making process, although slow, but most probably free from the quakes of unidentified risks. Transparency and accountability has not only benefitted the people but it has also boosted the confidence of the executive. As a small piece of paper is not enough to highlight the possible contributions of democracy to India, therefore it should be left for further debate.

But, Kautilya rejoiced the possibility of vulnerability of a democratic state and proclaimed that the existence of democracy means nobody is fit to rule the State. Recent surveys by various independent organizations have highlighted a particularly disturbing trend among our society. It showcases that the trust of the people in the democratic form of governance has eroded over the past few years and the citizens regard it as an impediment in our path of prosperity. There are several reasons for it, which may be true or partly true. The most important among them is that democracy prohibits the possibility of quick decision making. It could be partly true, but generally a trend has been seen that democratic systems have multiple layers of checks through which the process of quick decision making suffers a setback. It is also observed that in many times, when the quick decision making of the executive was required in India, the bureaucratic hurdles as well as the unnecessary colonial level regulations have impeded the process. It has resulted in the slipping away of opportunities (especially economic) from our hands to our undemocratic neighbors like China. The erosion of trust among the parliamentary form of governance due to undemocratic actions by few elements in the institution, to retard the progress of the country has led many to believe that democracy is not our way forward. The process of election has seen disturbing trends where politically inexperienced but economically motivated electors by the candidates are changing the dynamics of the institution of legislature and ultimately the Government at all levels. Therefore, the thoughts of political thinkers like John Stuart Mills, regarding extension of franchise to capable people alone, are being echoed in the politically active and mature minds of our people. The democratic system of governance has put some unnecessary fetters on our executive too through outdated as well as static laws because of which the executive finds it difficult to cope up with the changing dynamics of the governance. For example, the recent clamp down on some fringe elements among civil society to protect the political and economic security of the country was nullified by the judiciary due to lack of evidence. There has been inefficient law making in the past which needs regular upgradation to cope up with the changing dynamics of the society.

But the biggest failure of democracy is to secure a genuine political participation of its citizens in the functioning of the State. The emergence of a cycle of elite class rule in which the members of the ‘club’ rule the state turn-by-turn and there is a general prohibition of admission of common citizens in it. This elite club has seen the participation of rich, criminals as well as hereditary acceptance of the members. This circulation of elite theory has proved its dominance in Indian politics too where the dynastic rules, criminal as well as rich legislators have tried to circumvent the law according to their own whims and fancies.

Such examples have eroded the trust of the people of India in democracy and its ideals. But the ideals of democracy are not stagnant; rather they evolve with time and resolve such issues with the passage of time. People regard the democracy as the rule of semi-monarchs working under the stage of a democratic drama.

It could be agreed that democracy is not the perfect solution to India’s problems, but what other option do we have which is better than the democracy? We should remember that the right to discuss, demean and question the relevance of our Indian democracy, is given by the democracy itself.

UNGA decision on Security Council reform

With respect to carry forwarding the text based UNSC Reforms by the UNGA as per the information provided by the Ministry of External Affairs press note, I would like to add that -

This is a very big moment for India. I hope the support base that India enjoys around the world with the goodwill of being a ‘peaceful connect’ between the parties of the UNGA would help India to assume the much deserved role in UNSC. India has always been vocally as well as materially supportive of the ideals of peace, negotiations and respect for international law. India's enthusiastic participation in the UN Peace Keeping is not a secret anymore. To accommodate the growing global challenges, it is essential to reform the UNSC for the proper representation of the participating members and to preserve the ideals of equality on which the United Nations was formed in 1945.

Is the Indian Administrative Service a 'Steel Frame' or a 'Steel Cage'?

Indian Administrative Service is the backbone of the executive authority in India. Coming from diverse backgrounds, cultures and regions, these officers under one roof truly encompass the feeling of ‘unity in diversity’. The UPSC is responsible for the selection of the officers in a fair and transparent manner, exhibiting faith in the noble ideas of democracy. The diverse and rich experience of the members of the service allows the officers to handle the complexity of on the job administrative situations and therefore adds to the valor of the post itself. It is perfectly described as ‘permanent executive’ because they generally serve the country until their age of retirement and do not fall with the fall in the ‘political executive’.

The IAS helps in the smooth functioning of the government and administer complex on the job situations for which they are adequately trained in advance and are put forward to the job for execution. They are the policy formulators who manufacture future-oriented policies that could give a fillip to the prudent administration and inclusive growth of our country. As they are accorded with the task of maintenance of law and order too, they are generally considered very essential especially for the local administration. They are selected and trained by central authorities, therefore adequate safeguards are provided by the Central Government for the security of their tenure via inter-cadre transfers, deputations on central machinery and transfers under central pool. Also, the officers are the members of various IAS Associations which help the officer in the hour of the need to combat any act of injustice forwarded towards the officer, at the root level itself and also helps in case the matter reaches the judiciary. The IAS Officers theoretically work in an environment free from external pressures, accorded special protection and are adequately remunerated to dissolve the family tensions. They generally do enjoy the power to make decisions and are regarded essential for the administration. Their assistance to the political executive with special reports, documents of proof and ideas for the formulation of laws with the approval of the superior authorities generally sums up their executive work in totality.

But the picture is not as rosy as it is perceived. In the past few cases, the political interference has far exceeded its limit with the use of coercive, threatening and forceful abuse of political power on the permanent executive. The whole idea of subordination of bureaucracy lefts little scope of independent decision making. The agents of policy formulation and implementation of the same are merely accorded with the task of implementation in practicality. It is a common practice to change the bureaucrats via transfers and postings from time to time according to the whims and fancies of the political party in power, especially when the new government takes charge after the elections. The bureaucrat swears on the constitution for the prevention of any malpractice and corruption to uphold the sanctity of the constitution but the inadequate protection to the whistleblower invites threat from the non-state actors (like Mafia) and criminals, often working under the umbrella of the political power of the state. It jeopardizes the life of the concerned bureaucrat and his/her family and in such a situation he/she chooses to remain silent and thereby unwillingly compromise on his/her duty towards the state.

Also, with recent increase in complexities of administration, the workload of the officers have increased manifold as evident with inadequate supply of the officers as compared to the need of them in various departments. Adding insult to the injury is frequent transfers that are ‘rewarded’ generally to hide the malpractices of the political game, ultimately weakening the ‘war on corruption’. Frequent transfers have also hurt badly to the functioning of the concerned department because by the time the officer acquires experience to deal with the complexities of the issues of the department, he/she is transferred and the new head starts gaining experience from the scratch.

Increased unnecessary regulations via archaic laws in the name of transparency, is also detrimental to the working of the bureaucracy. It affects the functioning and questions the ability of the bureaucrats to handle the different real life situations for which there can not be a perfect way to carry out. Over emphasis on regulations in the name of transparency have instilled a fear in the minds of the bureaucrats and therefore, they generally avoid risky decisions that could add to the disadvantage of their job profile. Unnecessary accountability practices are also hurting the day to day work of the department by increasing the workload of the already under-staffed departments.

Therefore the need of the hour is to diversify and regularly update the selection procedures with special emphasis on the required skills for the job. We could always stop regarding the bureaucrats as ‘jack of all and master of none’ and rather bring them under a more demand of the job oriented framework for which the candidate would already possess certain skills and the training would merely work as a polish for their skills.

·         The frequent transfers and postings should be avoided until or unless there is a dire need of it because the officer acquires rich experience in a department and transferring him/her would mean killing that valuable experience.

·          Regular exchange programmes (like University Students) with foreign bureaucrats would add to their skills and capabilities and would ultimately provide innovative ideas to deal with the complexities of administration.

·         According adequate safeguards to the whistleblower (with certain exceptional cases) would arm our officers against the ‘war on corruption’.

·         Loosening unnecessary regulations, strengthening UPSC like authorities through autonomous functioning, getting rid of archaic laws would enhance the competitiveness and capabilities of our bureaucrats.

·         Accepting major recommendations of the ARC II Report without adding any political colour to it could strengthen our executive backbone.

The Indian Administrative Service is not a ‘colonial legacy’ but a dream of an independent India whereby the educated, hard-working youth of our country comes with a very high morale to serve the country and thereby contributing their rich experience to the ever growing and ever expanding dream of a ‘United and Shining India’. For the dream to become a reality, we have no right to keep the IAS in the ‘steel cage’, rather a ‘steel frame’ should be built around this organ of the executive so that it could work for the betterment of our society, region as well as the country in large.

What are the takeaways from the 'cancelled' India-Pakistan NSA talks?

With reference to Former Foreign Secretary of India Amb Kanwal Sibal's write up in Swami Vivekananda International Foundation, here is a brief reply to the esteemed dignitary over the issue.

"I might have to disagree a little with the pessimist assumption that the talks which were to occur last Sunday were merely an eye wash and could have signalled our weakness. Rather the talks were an intelligent move by the fantastic-duo (PM Modi and NSA Doval) to entrap the other side in a comprehensive dialogue on the issue of terrorism, on which India already has an edge with the comprehensive 'Doval dossiers'. Also, even with the last minute refusal to attend the talks (by Pakistan), the strategy of our 'fantastic-duo' has succeeded in isolating Pakistan with a global projection that it is unwilling to talk on terror and we give a prime priority to it, signalling our seriousness in combating terror.

Currently, the game is 1-1 because Pakistani side has successfully countered the above political move with an image that India is unwilling to talk 'bilaterally' on Kashmir issue and it is violating the letter and spirit of the Simla Agreement(1972).

What comes next in the coming months would be crucial because currently though the game is draw(tie), still India has an edge over Pakistan because the world regards terrorism as a more sincere and strategic threat to not only South and West Asia but to global peace and stability. Most of the world is least concerned about the stalemate over Kashmir question.

In Afghanistan, India is a major force, both US and China knows that and for Pakistan to replace India in Afghanistan, the public opinion and not only the political authority would guide the future course of action. India, despite being an energy-hungry developing economy, is not a neo-colonizer and this works in a very positive way for India."

Boom! Chinese bubble is about to collapse. Is it?

In the words of noted political and economic commentator – ‘Minxin Pei' – “The Chinese bubble is about to burst.” The manifestation of inflated Chinese statistics of imports as well as exports (in some sectors) has been dwindling over the rope of uncertainty.

Why?
- China’s import buddy – Australia, who supplied iron ore and coal like an obedient colony to his imperialist master, has been shrinking its resource exports. (45% drop in coal imports from Australia to China).
- Greece, although saw the arrival of a young, charming and leftist Alexis Tsipras regime is prepared for an exit from EU, which in turn is decelerating the revival process of EU nations and that's why despite sanctions on Russia, China couldn’t milk the opportunity of increasing exports to EU.
- A dopy increase in total debt of up to $17 trillion is haunting banking sector of China.
- A shoddy experiment of permeating democracy in local government with financial autonomy has earned him a debt of almost 40% of GDP which even the proposed 3 trillion Yuan bond swap agreement couldn’t digest.
-Emergence of multiple export oriented power centers like India, USA, Japan, Indonesia etc has demonopolised China’s import machinery and has opened avenues of negotiation for its suppliers like Australia, Africa, Venezuela, Russia etc.

Gone are the days when China could boast of its enlarged chest filled up with money earned out of exports. The equilibrium of import and export has been destabilized. Merely depending on exports for economic growth sidelining developmental initiatives is not feasible for an autocratic rule. Wonder what happens when the people of ‘undemocratic’ China would realize the income gaps after the sun of inflated statistics would stop shining.

A renewed U.S.-India partnership for the 21st century

Sharing a piece written by Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and US President Barack Obama in The Washington Post, first of its kind initiative.

As nations committed to democracy, liberty, diversity and enterprise, India and the United States are bound by common values and mutual interests. We have each shaped the positive trajectory of human history, and through our joint efforts, our natural and unique partnership can help shape international security and peace for years to come.

Ties between the United States and India are rooted in the shared desire of our citizens for justice and equality. When Swami Vivekananda presented Hinduism as a world religion, he did so at the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago. When Martin Luther King Jr. sought to end discrimination and prejudice against African Americans, he was inspired by Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent teachings. Gandhiji himself drew upon the writings of Henry David Thoreau.

As nations, we’ve partnered over the decades to deliver progress to our people. The people of India remember the strong foundations of our cooperation. The food production increases of the Green Revolution and the Indian Institutes of Technology are among the many products of our collaboration.

Today our partnership is robust, reliable and enduring, and it is expanding. Our relationship involves more bilateral collaboration than ever before — not just at the federal level but also at the state and local levels, between our two militaries, private sectors and civil society. Indeed, so much has happened that, in 2000, then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee could declare that we are natural allies.

After many years of growing cooperation since, on any given day, our students work together on research projects, our scientists develop cutting-edge technology and senior officials consult closely on global issues. Our militaries conduct joint exercises in air, on land and at sea, and our space programs engage in unprecedented areas of cooperation, leading us from Earth to Mars. And in this partnership, the Indian American community has been a vibrant, living bridge between us. Its success has been the truest reflection of the vitality of our people, the value of America’s open society and the strength of what we can do when we join together.

Still, the true potential of our relationship has yet to be fully realized. The advent of a new government in India is a natural opportunity to broaden and deepen our relationship. With a reinvigorated level of ambition and greater confidence, we can go beyond modest and conventional goals. It is time to set a new agenda, one that realizes concrete benefits for our citizens.

This will be an agenda that enables us to find mutually rewarding ways to expand our collaboration in trade, investment and technology that harmonize with India’s ambitious development agenda, while sustaining the United States as the global engine of growth. When we meet today in Washington, we will discuss ways in which we can boost manufacturing and expand affordable renewable energy, while sustainably securing the future of our common environment.

We will discuss ways in which our businesses, scientists and governments can partner as India works to improve the quality, reliability and availability of basic services, especially for the poorest of citizens. In this, the United States stands ready to assist. An immediate area of concrete support is the "Clean India" campaign, where we will leverage private and civil society innovation, expertise and technology to improve sanitation and hygiene throughout India.

While our shared efforts will benefit our own people, our partnership aspires to be larger than merely the sum of its parts. As nations, as people, we aspire to a better future for all; one in which our strategic partnership also produces benefits for the world at large. While India benefits from the growth generated by U.S. investment and technical partnerships, the United States benefits from a stronger, more prosperous India. In turn, the region and the world benefit from the greater stability and security that our friendship creates. We remain committed to the larger effort to integrate South Asia and connect it with markets and people in Central and Southeast Asia.

As global partners, we are committed to enhancing our homeland security by sharing intelligence, through counterterrorism and law-enforcement cooperation, while we jointly work to maintain freedom of navigation and lawful commerce across the seas. Our health collaboration will help us tackle the toughest of challenges, whether combating the spread of Ebola, researching cancer cures or conquering diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria and dengue. And we intend to expand our recent tradition of working together to empower women, build capacity and improve food security in Afghanistan and Africa.

The exploration of space will continue to fire our imaginations and challenge us to raise our ambitions. That we both have satellites orbiting Mars tells its own story. The promise of a better tomorrow is not solely for Indians and Americans: It also beckons us to move forward together for a better world. This is the central premise of our defining partnership for the 21st century. Forward together we go — chalein saath saath.

An Invitation to 'Make In India'

Sharing the debut piece by our Honourable Prime Minister @narendramodi in Wall Street Journal giving a call to "Make In India", to boost manufacturing that is currently contributing merely 15% to our GDP.

An Invitation to 'Make in India'
With 800 million people under age 35, we are a nation ready for rapid, responsible economic development.


Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) scientists and engineers cheer after India's Mars orbiter successfully entered the red planet's orbit.

There is a high tide of hope for change in India. This May, across India's immense diversity, 1.25 billion people spoke unequivocally for political stability, good governance and rapid development. India has a government with a majority in the Lok Sabha, our lower house of parliament, for the first time in 30 years. A young nation with 800 million people under age 35, India is brimming with optimism and confidence. The young people's energy, enthusiasm and enterprise are India's greatest strength. Unleashing those attributes is my government's biggest mission.

We will pursue this mission by eliminating unnecessary laws and regulations, making bureaucratic processes easier and shorter, and ensuring that our government is more transparent, responsive and accountable. It has been said that doing the thing right is as important as doing the right thing.


We will create world-class infrastructure that India badly needs to accelerate growth and meet people's basic needs. We will make our cities and towns habitable, sustainable and smart; and we will make our villages the new engines of economic transformation. "Make in India" is our commitment—and an invitation to all—to turn India into a new global manufacturing hub. We will do what it takes to make it a reality.

We ran our election campaign on the promise of inclusive development. To me, that means many things: skills education, and opportunity; safety, dignity and rights for those in every section of our society, especially women; a bank account for every Indian; affordable health care within everyone's reach; sanitation for all by 2019; a roof over every head by 2022; electricity for every household; and connectivity to every village. In addressing these daunting challenges, I draw confidence from countless extraordinary stories of ordinary Indians that I have seen through decades of travel across India.

I also strongly believe in the possibilities of technology and innovation to transform governance, empower people, provide affordable solutions for societal challenges and reach people in ways that were unimaginable not so long ago. The number of cell phones in India has gone up from about 40 million to more than 900 million in a decade; our country is already the second-largest market for smart phones, with sales growing ever faster. When I think of the growth in computing power and storage capacity and its miniaturization that the world has witnessed over the past two decades, I am confident that this can be replicated in renewable energy. With solar and wind power, thousands of Indian villages will be able to get access quickly to reliable, affordable and clean energy, without waiting for large, faraway conventional power plants to be built.

For this reason, India's journey to prosperity can be a more sustainable and environmentally sensitive one than the path followed by countries that came of age in earlier eras. This is a journey of our choice, rooted in our tradition that worships nature's bounties.

India will pursue its dreams in partnership with our international friends. History tells us that India's natural instinct is to be open to the world. India will be open and friendly—for business, ideas, research, innovations and travel. In the coming months, you will feel the difference even before you begin your travel to India.

The United States is our natural global partner. India and the U.S. embody the enduring and universal relevance of their shared values. The thriving Indian-American community in the U.S. is a metaphor for the potential of our partnership, and for the possibilities of an environment that nurtures enterprise and rewards hard work. Our strengths in information technology are especially important for leadership in the digital age. The partnership between our businesses takes place in the comfort and certainty of similar political systems and shared commitment to rule of law. In education, innovation, and science and technology, the U.S continues to inspire India.

India and the U.S. have a fundamental stake in each other's success—for the sake of our values and our many shared interests. That is also the imperative of our partnership. And it will be of great value in advancing peace, security and stability in the Asia and Pacific regions; in the unfinished and urgent task of combating terrorism and extremism; and in securing our seas, cyber space and outer space, all of which now have a profound influence on our daily lives.
The complementary strengths of India and the U.S. can be used for inclusive and broad-based global development to transform lives across the world. Because our countries' values and interests are aligned, though our circumstances are different, we are in a unique position to become a bridge to a more integrated and cooperative world. With sensitivity to each other's point of view and the confidence of our friendship, we can contribute to more concerted international efforts to meet the pressing global challenges of our times.

This is a moment of flux in the global order. I am confident in the destiny of our two nations, because democracy is the greatest source of renewal and, with the right conditions, offers the best opportunity for the human spirit to flourish.

Mr. Modi is prime minister of India.