📰 India and Russia: Salvaging a strategic partnership
The India-Russia dialogue should not get inextricably entangled in the India-U.S. dialogue
•At their meeting in Goa at the India-Russia annual summit, in October 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi quoted a Russian proverb to Russian President Vladimir Putin: “An old friend is better than two new ones.” It was a reassurance that India’s growing proximity to the U.S. would not affect India-Russia relations. As Mr. Putin came calling two years on, the shadow of America again loomed over the summit, in New Delhi. This time, it was closer, larger and more menacing.
Assertion of autonomy
•The question that dominated the meet was whether or not the deal for the Russian air defence missile system, the S-400, would go through. The U.S. has been publicly warning for months that this purchase could attract provisions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which authorises the U.S. government to impose sanctions on entities for “significant” defence transactions with Russia. The state-of-the-art S-400 deal, at a little over $5 billion, would naturally qualify as “significant”. The sanctioned entity would be cut off from all business in the U.S. and with U.S. companies.
•Just before Mr. Modi left for his informal meeting with Mr. Putin in Sochi in May this year, a U.S. official warned in a media conference that the S-400 acquisition would attract CAATSA. The same message was conveyed in India by a visiting Congressional delegation in end-May. The India-U.S. 2+2 meeting (of Foreign and Defence Ministers) in September did not resolve this issue. Shortly thereafter, two weeks before Mr. Putin arrived in India, the U.S. State Department announced sanctions on a Chinese company that had imported the S-400 over eight months earlier, asserting that it was a signal to others engaged with the Russian defence sector.
•The contract for the S-400 was signed at the Delhi summit in a low-key manner. Neither leader mentioned it in his press statement and it was not signed in their presence. The one sentence announcement was in paragraph 45 of a rambling 68-paragraph Joint Statement. Mr Modi did not mention defence cooperation in his press statement, though it has been the centrepiece of India-Russia relations over decades. There was no mention also of other defence projects under discussion; their consideration may have been deferred to the meeting of the India-Russian Inter-Governmental Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation, in December.
•Though understated, it was a clear assertion of autonomy of Indian decision-making on Russia. Other signals conveyed the same message. Mr. Modi invited his Russian guest to a tête-à-tête over dinner, which lasted over three hours. They displayed the warm chemistry that was evident in their Sochi meeting. Mr. Modi’s press statement paid fulsome tribute to Mr. Putin’s personal contribution to the “unique” India-Russia relations, said India attached “top priority” to these relations, which would scale new heights. Such utterances would normally be considered usual summit hyperbole, but spoken in this context of external scrutiny, they are significant.
Outlook on neighbourhood
•There is a general perception that Indian and Russian perspectives today differ on key issues in India’s neighbourhood — Pakistan, Afghanistan and China — and on India’s strategic linkages with the U.S., including on the Indo-Pacific. These issues would certainly have figured in the various meetings. In the public domain, we have only Mr. Modi’s bland assertion that there were detailed discussions on “all international issues of mutual interest”, specifically citing “common interests” on terrorism, Afghanistan and the Indo-Pacific. On Pakistan, one might note the nuance that the Joint Statement mentions cross-border terrorism, which some earlier Joint Statements did not. On Afghanistan, India expressed support for the “Moscow format”, in which Russia involves regional countries and major powers in an effort to draw the Taliban into negotiations with the Afghan leadership. The U.S. has boycotted this initiative, but has initiated its own dialogue with the Taliban. A U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan is now touring Afghanistan, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia to generate help in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table. India is not on his itinerary.
•The Joint Statement has the usual laundry list of priority areas of cooperation, including infrastructure, engineering, natural resources, space and technology. It expresses the commitment to raise trade and investment to a level more commensurate with the potential. There has been some recent action in this direction, with Commerce and Industry Minister Suresh Prabhu leading business delegations to major Russian economic forums. Mr. Modi and Mr. Putin also addressed a well-attended business summit in Delhi.
Business despite sanctions
•There are obvious opportunities for cooperation between Russia, which is natural resources-rich, and India, which is resource-hungry. Whether they are exploited would depend on how well India’s economic ministries, banks and business community understand the ground realities of doing business with Russia. Even before CAATSA, there was confusion in India about sanctions against Russia. The U.S. and European sanctions between 2014 and 2016 are sector- and currency-specific. They affect entities operating in Europe and the U.S., and transactions in euro or dollar currencies. They are not applicable to other geographies or currencies. This remains the case, even post-CAATSA, for all sectors other than defence and energy. Therefore, with proper structuring of business deals, trade and investment exchanges with Russia are possible, and without losing business with Europe and America. This explains how the economic engagement of major European countries with Russia has actually grown in 2017 and 2018, despite the sanctions. European and American corporate lawyers with expertise on sanctions have enabled this. Indian business needs to tap into this expertise.
•The threat to India-Russia defence cooperation extends well beyond the suspense over the S-400 deal. Every potential India-Russia defence deal could be subjected to a determination on applicability of sanctions. Actually imposing sanctions would hurt U.S. defence sales to India, defeating one of the principal objectives of the legislation. The effort would likely be to achieve desired results with the threat of sanctions.
•Given the political dynamics in the U.S. today, a systemic solution to this problem is not evident. However, it has to be on the India-U.S. dialogue agenda. The India-U.S. strategic partnership is based on a strong mutuality of interests, but it was not intended to have the exclusivity of an alliance. India should not have to choose between one strategic partnership and another. The India-Russia dialogue should not get inextricably entangled in the India-U.S. dialogue.
📰 Arrest the exodus in Gujarat
Gujarat must rethink the proposal to limit jobs for migrant workers
•Following the horrific rape of a toddler, allegedly by a migrant worker, in Sabarkantha district on September 28, there has been an exodus out of northern Gujarat of Hindi-speaking migrant workers. There have been incidents of “revenge attacks” on them. But while the anger among residents on account of the incident might have been the trigger, there could be much more at play. As in other States, Gujarat is seeing increasing discontent over the lack of adequate jobs for young people. This is reflected in multiple surveys, including a recent Ipsos-Gates Foundation survey which found that Indians were most worried about unemployment (48%), among the countries covered. The CMIE’s unemployment rate monthly time series shows that 4.6% of those surveyed and actively looking for work in Gujarat were not employed in September 2018. This is less than the national average (6.8%), but there has been a relative increase in this number since the previous year in Gujarat. Disquiet over lack of job opportunities has bubbled up in the demand for limiting jobs for migrants and in resentment against ‘outsiders’. The Gujarat government, under pressure from the Opposition, has promised to make it mandatory for manufacturing and service sector companies to hire 80% of their workforce from the State’s domiciles and to reserve 25% of hires for residents from the location.
•Based on data since 2011, the Economic Survey in 2016-17 pointed out that Gujarat is among the States, including Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and West Bengal, with the highest net in-migration of workers. The study also found that States that were relatively better developed than the rest of the country were also host to more migrants. It stands to reason that migrants have played a vital role in greasing the wheels of growth in States like Gujarat by providing cheap labour in the many small and medium enterprises in the manufacturing and construction sectors. The fact that industry and commerce associations in Gujarat have complained about the flight of migrants, with the festival season looming, reflects the importance of migrant labour in Gujarat. The State must follow a more holistic policy of creating incentives for firms leading to greater employment, instead of merely dictating higher recruitment of locals. Gujarat is no exception. Nativist arguments against migrants have been too easily used by political forces in various States, from more developed ones such as Maharashtra to smaller States such as Meghalaya, to address resentment over the paucity of jobs. This neither serves the interest of the State concerned, considering the economic role of migrant labour, nor addresses the issue of ensuring job-oriented growth. Apart from steps to arrest the violence against the migrants and stop the exodus, the Gujarat government must commit itself to a facilitating role for job-creation.
📰 We need a pro-liberty judicial approach
The judiciary is deviating from its own precedents in terms of civil liberties
•Article 21 of the Constitution places the personal liberty of citizens on the highest pedestal, and so it is the duty of our courts to protect it. However, two recent decisions of the Supreme Court suggest that the court may not be showing sufficient zeal in upholding liberty.
•In Romila Thapar v. Union of India, the case concerning the Bhima-Koregaon accused, the court should have applied the ‘clear and present danger’ test of the celebrated Justice Holmes of the U.S. Supreme Court (followed by the Indian Supreme Court in Government of A.P. v. P. Laxmi Devi, vide para 79), or the ‘imminent lawless action’ test of the U.S. Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (followed by the Indian Supreme Court in Sri Indra Das v. State of Assam).
•If it had done so, it would have held that the actions of the accused in the Bhima-Koregaon incident, even assuming the charges to be true, could not have posed any clear and present danger of a violent uprising, and after holding so, the court would have quashed the proceedings against them, and consequently released all the five accused forthwith.
•In Abhijit Iyer-Mitra v. State of Odisha, the Supreme Court refused bail to the petitioner saying that his action hurt religious feelings, an offence under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. But on the principles laid down by the court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and other decisions, bail should have been granted. There was no likelihood of the petitioner tampering with the evidence or fleeing from justice. Also, the offence was not as grave or heinous as murder, or gang-rape. All that the petitioner did was to tweet some satirical remarks about the Konark temple, and he clarified in later tweets that he was joking. It is true that the tweets were indiscreet because many Indians do not understand satire, but the court could have laid down the condition in its order granting bail that the petitioner should not repeat such remarks, which could hurt religious feelings, and if he did that the bail could be cancelled. It was certainly not a case deserving rejection of bail altogether.
•In Ghani v. Jones (1970) 1 Q.B. 693 Lord Denning observed: “A man’s liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the laws of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest grounds.” This view was followed by the seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and is therefore the law of the land. It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court now seems to be deviating from its own precedents. In the present political climate, it is imperative that the court uphold civil liberties lest another Emergency descend upon us.
📰 U.S. seeks Pakistan help on Afghanistan
Special envoy arrives in Pakistan, holds talks with Foreign Secretary
•Washington’s newly named point man tasked with finding a peaceful end to Afghanistan’s 17-year war is in Pakistan to seek help from the new government in Islamabad in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table, the U.S. Embassy said on Tuesday.
•A former U.S. Ambassador in Kabul, Zalmay Khalilzad arrived in Pakistan from neighboring Afghanistan. His tour of the region will also include West Asian stops in the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
•In Afghanistan, he met with President Ashraf Ghani, a long-time friend. Mr. Khalilzad, who was also born in Afghanistan, first served in Kabul as a special envoy of President George W. Bush following the 2001 ouster of the Taliban, and then later as Washington’s Ambassador.
•But Mr. Khalilzad has had a prickly relationship with Pakistan and has often accused Islamabad of fomenting violence in Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban. He has even said the U.S. should declare Pakistan a terrorist state.
Safe havens
•Washington and Kabul have both repeatedly accused Pakistan of providing safe havens for Taliban insurgents, a claim Islamabad has denied and countered with charges that its own insurgents have found sanctuary in Afghanistan.
•Both neighbouring countries have been brutally targeted by militants. In Pakistan, the perpetrators have most often been the region’s Islamic State affiliate, as well as the Pakistani Taliban. In neighbouring Afghanistan, the IS has been relentless in attacks, mostly targeting minority Shias. The Afghan Taliban say they restrict their attacks to Afghan security forces but thousands of civilians have been killed in their attacks.
•In Pakistan, Mr. Khalilzad was met by Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua, who led a delegation that included “security, defence and diplomatic officials,” according to a tweet from the foreign office spokesman. There were no further details. Pakistan’s Afghan policy is largely seen as navigated by the military and its intelligence agency, known by its acronym, ISI.
📰 ‘Titli’ puts coastal Odisha on high alert
Cyclonic storm likely to intensify
•Several coastal districts of Odisha have been put on high alert as the cyclonic storm ‘Titli’ is expected to intensify into a severe cyclonic storm in the next 24 hours.
•As a precautionary measure, the State government has ordered the closure of all educational institutes and anganwadi kendras in Ganjam, Gajapati, Puri and Jagatsinghpur districts from Wednesday till effects of the storm are over. A decision over closure of institutes in some other districts may be taken after a review of the situation on Wednesday.
High-level meeting
•A high-level meeting was convened by the State chief secretary in Bhubaneswar on Tuesday evening to take stock of the situation and preparedness to face ‘Titli’.
•The latest bulletin by the India Meteorological Department said the cyclonic storm was centred at 510 km from Gopalpur. This severe cyclonic storm is expected to move west-northward and make landfall between Gopalpur in south Odisha and Kalingapatnam in Andhra Pradesh by October 11 morning. During the landfall, this severe cyclonic storm is expected to have a wind speed of 100 to 110 km/hr with gusts of up to 125 km/hr.
•According to Odisha’s Special Relief Commissioner Bishnupad Sethi, people living in low lying coastal areas of Ganjam, Khurda and Puri districts may be evacuated to cyclone shelters on Wednesday if the need arises. Ganjam Collector Vijay Amruta Kulange said vulnerable areas are being identified and people of these areas will be evacuated to safe multi-purpose shelters if needed.
•Three hundred boats have been kept ready for emergencies. Six teams of National Disaster Response Force have been sent to Gajapati, Puri, Kendrapada, Nayagarh, Jajpur and Bhadrak districts for rescue operations. Seven teams of Odisha Disaster Rapid Action Force are being deployed in Ganjam, Jagatsinghpur, Khurda, Cuttack, Balasore, Mayurbhanj and Kalahandi districts.
•The regional meteorological department on Tuesday gave ‘Red’ warning for Ganjam, Gajapati, Puri, Jagatsinghpur and Kendrapara districts as heavy to very heavy rainfall is likely to occur in these places from Wednesday. ‘Orange’ alert has been issued for Khurda, Nayagarh, Cuttack, Jajpur, Dhenkanal, Bhadrak and Balasore.
📰 Indian roads claim more cyclists in 2017
Pedestrian fatalities also spike in 2017
•Pedestrians and cyclists suffered the biggest spike in fatalities in road accidents across the country in 2017, even as overall fatalities in road accidents and the total count of such incidents declined marginally.
•According to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways’ annual report on road accidents, the total number of accidents dropped 3.3% in 2017 to 4.64 lakh, with the overall number of lives lost in these crashes declining 1.9% to 1.47 lakh, from 1.5 lakh in 2016.
•However, the number of pedestrians killed in road accidents jumped by 29.9% to 20,457 and the number of cyclists killed surged by 37.7% to 3,559. Pedestrians and cyclists together accounted for 16.2% of the total fatalities in road accidents during 2017.
•The data also shows that almost 7 out of 10 two-wheeler and four wheeler users who died in an accident did not follow the mandatory requirement of wearing helmets and seat belts.
•Use of mobile phones was among the top four traffic violations that led to road fatalities — overspeeding accounted for 66.7% of total deaths in road crashes, driving on the wrong side claimed 6.4%, drunken driving 3.2%, and use of mobile phones accounted for 2.1% of total road deaths.
•Tamil Nadu topped in number of accidents, while U.P. had the most fatalities.
•The Ministry attributes the incidence of road mishaps to an increase in the overall number of motor vehicles.
•“The increase in personalized means of transport and decline in share of public transport have significant implications on traffic congestion and safety,” the Ministry said in the report.
•The total number of registered motor vehicles in the country grew at the rate of 9.9% between 2006 and 2016. Two wheelers, cars and jeeps witnessed a growth rate of 10.1%, while goods vehicles and buses increased by 9% and 5.9% respectively. The composition of vehicular population in 2016 shows two-wheelers having the highest share (73.5%), followed by cars, jeeps and taxis (13.1%), other vehicles (8.1%), goods vehicles (4.6%) and buses (0.8%).
📰 Another warning on warming
The new IPCC report makes it clear that the path forward offers no simple or easy solutions
•The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just released a special report on global warming of 1.5°C over pre-industrial temperatures. Produced speedily, it provides details on how the global response to climate change needs to be strengthened within the broader context of sustainable development and continuing efforts to eradicate poverty. The impacts of 1.5°C of warming and the possible development pathways by which the world could get there are its main focus.
•It was in 2015, at the Paris climate conference, that the global community made a pact to pursue efforts to limit warming to within 1.5°C — half a degree below the previous target of 2°C. With the increase in extreme events and the very survival of small islands at stake, the lower limit was greeted then with surprise and enthusiasm.
•For most people, the difference between 1.5°C and 2°C may seem trivial when daily temperatures fluctuate much more widely. However, the reference here is to global average temperatures. Different regions of the earth will warm at different rates. For instance, the Arctic is already experiencing warming that is many times higher than the global average.
•If nations do not mount a strenuous response against climate change, average global temperatures, which have already crossed 1°C, are likely to cross the 1.5°C mark around 2040. The window of opportunity to take action is very small and closing fast.
Ripple effects
•Half a degree of warming makes a world of difference to many species whose chance of survival is significantly reduced at the higher temperature. At 1.5°C warming, ocean acidification will be reduced (compared to 2°C warming), with better prospects for marine ecosystems. There will likely be less intense and frequent hurricanes, not as intense droughts and heat waves with smaller effects on crops, and the reduced likelihood of an ice-free Arctic in summers.
•Studies conservatively estimate sea levels to rise on average by about 50 cm by 2100 in a 2°C warmer world, 10 cm more than for 1.5°C warming. But beyond 2100, the overall assurance of much higher sea level rise is greater in a 2°C world. The risks to food security, health, fresh water, human security, livelihoods and economic growth are already on the rise and will be worse in a 2°C world. The number of people exposed to the complex and compounded risks from warming will also increase and the poorest — mostly in Asia and Africa — will suffer the worst impacts. Adaptation, or the changes required to withstand the temperature rise, will also be lower at the lower temperature limit.
•The danger of crossing tipping points, or thresholds beyond which the earth’s systems are no longer able to stabilise, becomes higher with more warming. Such tipping points include melting of Greenland ice, collapse of Antarctic glaciers (which would lead to several metres of sea level rise), destruction of Amazon forests, melting of all the permafrost and so on.
Pathways and polices
•The IPCC report identifies two main strategies. The first stabilises global temperature around the 1.5°C mark with limited overshoot and the second permits temperatures to exceed 1.5°C temporarily before coming back down. The consequences of the temporary overshoot would cause worse impacts than the first approach. To limit warming to around 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot, global net carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions need to decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net zero around mid-century. In comparison, to limit warming to just below 2°C, the reductions needed are about 20% by 2030 and reach net zero around 2075.
•There are several mitigation pathways illustrated to achieve these reductions and all of them incorporate different levels of CO2 removal. Emissions need to peak early within the next decade or so, and then drop. These different methods will themselves involve various risks, costs and trade-offs. But there are also many synergies between achieving mitigation targets and fulfilling Sustainable Development Goals. To stay below 1.5°C, the transitions required by energy systems and human societies, in land use, transport, and infrastructure, would have to be rapid and on an unprecedented scale with deep emission reductions.
•How is the remaining carbon budget, that is the room available in the atmosphere to safely contain more CO2, going to be shared among different countries? This is a difficult question to address, given the contentious nature of the negotiations. It has been reported, for instance, that the U.S. has been obstructionist in the deliberations in Incheon, South Korea, at the recent meeting to determine the final text of the report. The U.S. also reiterated its intent to pull out of the Paris Agreement.
•Contributions from the U.S. and other rich countries to the Green Climate Fund and other funding mechanisms for the purpose of mitigation and adaptation are vital even to reach the goals of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) — commitments that each country made prior to the Paris conference. Even if all the NDCs are implemented, the world is expected to warm by over 3°C.
•Disputes over the implementation of the Paris Agreement at numerous meetings depict the deep divides among rich countries, emerging economies and least developed countries. This special report poses options for the global community of nations, which they will have to contend with in Poland — the next Conference of the Parties. Each will have to decide whether to play politics on a global scale for one’s own interests or to collaborate to protect the world and its ecosystems as a whole. The path forward offers no simple or easy solutions.
📰 Target 1.5: tackling global warming
Time is running out to keep global warming below 1.5°C since pre-industrial era levels
•The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has come out with a clear scientific consensus that calls for a reversal of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, to prevent severe harm to humanity in the decades ahead. World leaders have been looking for greater clarity on the impact of accumulating emissions on climate. The IPCC’s special report on global warming of 1.5°C, prepared as a follow-up to the UN Paris Agreement on Climate Change, provides the scientific basis for them to act. There is now greater confidence in time-bound projections on the impacts of climate change on agriculture, health, water security and extreme weather. With sound policies, the world can still pull back, although major progress must be achieved by 2030. Governments should achieve net zero CO2 addition to the atmosphere, balancing man-made emissions through removal of CO2. There is public support for this and governments must go even beyond what they have committed to. The Paris Agreement aims to keep global temperature rise in this century well below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the increase even further, to 1.5°C. The IPCC makes it clear that the human and economic costs of a 2°C rise are far greater than for 1.5°C, and the need for action is urgent. Human activity has warmed the world by 1°C over the pre-industrial level and with another half-degree rise, many regions will have warmer extreme temperatures, raising the frequency, intensity and amount of rain or severity of drought. Risks to food security and water, heat exposure, drought and coastal submergence all increase significantly even for a 1.5°C rise.
•India, Pakistan and China are already suffering moderate effects of warming in areas such as water availability, food production and land degradation, and these will worsen, as the report says. Closer to a 2°C increase, these impacts are expected to spread to sub-Saharan Africa, and West and East Asia. The prognosis for India, of annual heatwaves by mid-century in a scenario of temperature increase in the 1.5°C to 2°C range, is particularly worrying. There is evidence to show it is among the regions that would experience the largest reductions in economic growth in a 2°C scenario. These are clear pointers, and the sensible course for national policy would be to fast-track the emissions reduction pledges made for the Paris Agreement. The commitment to generate 100 GW of solar energy by 2022 should lead to a quick scale-up from the 24 GW installed, and cutting down of coal use. Agriculture needs to be strengthened with policies that improve water conservation, and afforestation should help create a large carbon sink. There is a crucial role for all the States, since their decisions will have a lock-in effect.
