📰 China doubles down on boundary claims
•“Bhutan has sent a strong message to China,” said one source, adding that Bhutan’s response was also given through the GEF council meeting where China had raised the issue. At the time, Bhutan had assumed that since the Chinese representative was not a Foreign Ministry official, but a Deputy Director General (DDG) in the Chinese Financial and Monetary Cooperation Division, that the decision to stop the grant, which failed, was not thought through.
•According to the GEF Council Chairman’s summary released on June 16, of the virtual meeting held on June 2-3, Aparna Subramani, the World Bank official representing Bhutan, as well as India, Bangladesh, Maldives and Sri Lanka, had said that “Bhutan totally rejects the claim made by the Council Member of China. Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary is an integral and sovereign territory of Bhutan and at no point during the boundary discussions between Bhutan and China has it featured as a disputed area”.
•“Bhutan hoped its response would close the matter,” the source added.
•According to Bhutanese experts, the claim on Sakteng will open new fronts of negotiation when the next round of boundary talks are held.
•“Such claims undermine the boundary talks and wild claims on either side by officials will only exacerbate issues as Bhutan too can lay claims far north,” said Tenzing Lamsang, Editor of T he Bhutanese newspaper in Thimphu, in a series of tweets last week. “Ultimately Bhutan and China need to resolve its boundary disputes or such false claims will come up as a pressure tactic,” he added.
India needs serious economic reforms
•The June 15 clash between India and China in the Galwan Valley offers a glimpse of what may lie ahead for India. Despite New Delhi’s nuanced diplomacy, China’s authoritarian turn at home and assertive behaviour abroad underscore a growing problem. India’s China challenge couldn’t come at a worse time. While working to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, India finds itself struggling to navigate an economic emergency. Success — and keeping Beijing at bay — will hinge upon completing the transformation begun in 1991.
•China’s economic opening-up has left India behind, contributing to a military imbalance. In 1987, both countries’ nominal GDP were almost equal. China’s economy was nearly five times larger than India’s in 2019. Not coincidentally, from rough parity in 1989, China’s military spending last year more than tripled India’s. India’s pronounced economic slump, predating the epidemic, won’t help right this equation. The government’s near-term attention may be consumed by tending to the swelling ranks of the poor. Limited fiscal and monetary tools, and dried-up private financing, constrain India’s options. Heightened vigilance along the LAC demands summoning scarce resources. Defence budgets were already tightening. If India cannot close the economic gap and build military muscle, Beijing may feel emboldened to probe the subcontinent’s land and maritime periphery.
Slowdown in reforms
•The root causes of India’s economic woes can be traced to a slowdown in reforms. In 1991, India enacted changes allowing markets to set commodity prices but did not similarly liberalise land, labour and capital. Nearly 30 years after historic reforms, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has the opportunity to launch big, structural change, to eventually resume growth above 8% and keep China at arm’s length.
•This spring, the government has delivered mixed messages about a revitalised reform agenda. Officials have discussed land and labour changes, while reaffirming an interest in integrating India into global value chains. Several States have temporarily lifted labour restrictions, eliciting concerns about going too far, while others intend to make land acquisition easier. But Delhi’s drumbeat of self-reliance could inhibit growth and constrain investment in a more vigorous foreign and defence policy. To be clear, greater self-sufficiency can be salutary. Home-grown manufacturing of critical medicinal ingredients or digital safeguards on citizens’ personal data would reduce vulnerabilities. Conversely, imposing protective barriers to build-up local defence industry would hamper acquisitions helping balance Beijing.
•In the coming years, India’s most important contest with China will likely unfold in C-suites and boardrooms. Right now, China faces intense scrutiny resulting from the pandemic, geopolitical competition, trade wars, and economic coercion. Businesses are revisiting whether or not to diversify suddenly exposed international value chains. India’s rivals are staking their claim on regulatory predictability, stable tax policies, and fewer trade obstacles. While India remains outside the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, competitors are wooing companies seeking lower trade barriers. Asian countries are pushing ahead: Vietnam just inked a trade deal with the European Union that threatens to slice into India’s exports.
•India urgently needs increased exports and investments to provide more well-paying jobs, technology, and know-how. Businesses purchase cost-efficient inputs overseas for use in higher value, manufactured exports. Before committing to long-term, multi-billion investments, companies often want to test India’s market through international sales. Liberalisation remains the tried-and-true path to competitiveness. If India can unite its people and rapidly strengthen capabilities, it will likely discover that China is kept more honest. The choices that India makes to recapture consistent, high growth will determine its future. Bold reforms offer the best option to manage Beijing and achieve greater independence on the world stage.
📰 India must not cast anchor in ‘Enrica Lexie’
As a good international citizen, the country has accepted the tribunal’s award; it must ensure that Italy fully honours it
•Italy has achieved its basic objective in the Enrica Lexie-St. Antony matter . All through this sorry saga, it wanted its two marines, Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, to stand trial for killing two Indian fishermen, Ajeesh Pink and Valentine Jelastine, not in India but in Italy. The marines were part of a security contingent on the Enrica Lexie, an Italian commercial oil tanker while Pink and Valentine were on the Indian fishing boat, St. Antony. The incident took place on February 15, 2012, in India’s Contiguous Zone, 20.5 nautical miles off the Kerala coast.
Present and past
•The operative part of the Annex VII arbitral tribunal’s decision, made public last week, on July 2, 2020, gave Italy full satisfaction on this crucial point although in a split 3-2 verdict, and on shaky grounds. The tribunal, established by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) under the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), held that the marines were “entitled to immunity in relation to the acts that they committed during the incident of 15 February, 2012, and that India is precluded from exercising its jurisdiction over the Marines”. India had opposed Italy’s request for an arbitral tribunal but ITLOS ruled in Italy’s favour.
•ITLOS had asked both countries to “suspend all court proceedings” and “refrain from initiating new ones” that may “aggravate the dispute” or prevent the implementation of the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision. Accordingly, the judicial proceedings against the Italian marines in India were suspended. In May 2016, the Supreme Court of India allowed Girone who was on bail in India to return to Italy pending the decision of the Tribunal; Lattore was already there because of medical reasons.
The small print
•Italy will now continue with the case it had registered against Lattore and Girone. It is highly unlikely though that any Italian court will convict Lattore and Girone for Pink and Valentine’s unjustified killing. The reported humanitarian assistance that the Italian authorities gave their families can never be taken as justice for the lives snuffed out by two trigger-happy members of the Italian armed forces who, without any justification, considered the fishing boat to be a pirate skiff.
•Only the operative portion of the tribunal’s award is available till now. The detailed award is being scrutinised by India and Italy for redactions of those portions either country feels are confidential, and therefore cannot be publicly disclosed. Besides, the tribunal’s hearing, except for the opening statements of the two countries’ agents, was held confidentially. It is unlikely then that Italy would allow facts prejudicial to its version to be made open. The legal points on the jurisdiction of the two countries to try the marines and the immunity issue should become available hopefully somewhat soon. They would enable a full assessment to be made of the reasoning adopted by the majority to reach its conclusions on these important issues.
•The Ministry of External Affairs statement on the award notes “The Tribunal observed that India and Italy had concurrent jurisdiction over the incident and a valid legal basis to institute criminal proceedings against the marines.” Prima facie then the tribunal should have allowed the case to continue in India for the victims were Indians and the Enrica Lexie came voluntarily to India and after investigations a case was lodged against Lattore and Girone. It is noteworthy that the tribunal did not accept Italy’s charge that India brought the Italian oil tanker by a ruse to Kochi. Clearly, however, the tribunal majority found a way to ensure that the case should continue in Italy by agreeing with the Italian plea that the marines had immunity for they were state officials.
A dangerous precedent
•India’s stand that UNCLOS is not concerned with issues relating to immunity was strong. Immunity of state officials has to be governed by specific multilateral or bilateral treaties or agreements. It should not be tangentially brought in to settle issues of jurisdiction. Besides, even if Italian marines are considered as state officials, they were deployed on an Italian commercial vessel. Italy did so unilaterally without the cover of any multilateral or bilateral arrangement. There is no convention that such persons as the marines in such cases are immune from local criminal jurisdiction; only heads of states, heads of governments and foreign ministers customarily enjoy immunity abroad apart from accredited diplomats who are covered by the Vienna Convention.
•Thus, the tribunal’s decision on the marines’ immunity sets a dangerous precedent. Countries may now be tempted to enact specific laws to give immunity to their military and para-military personnel and others by declaring them state officials and thereafter place them on different kinds of commercial craft and use them for adventurous purposes. This can lead to an increase in tensions generally and especially between inimical states, and more so if there are problems relating to fishermen between contiguous states.
New Delhi must be focused
•India can take satisfaction that the tribunal found that by firing on the St. Antony, Italy was guilty of “violating India’s freedom and right of navigation”. Consequently, it held that “India is entitled to payment of compensation in connection with loss of life, physical harm, material damage to property and moral harm” perpetrated by Italy. Now it is incumbent on the government to ensure that Italy is made to pay fully for the loss of life and the suffering it has caused in this matter. Any lapse on this count will be inexcusable. Considerations of good relations with Italy or with the European Union (EU) which had stood beside Italy throughout this matter should not be allowed to influence these specific negotiations.
•The government should also ensure that it closely monitors the case proceedings in the Italian court against Lattore and Girone. This is notwithstanding, as mentioned earlier, that Italy would be inclined to only go through the motions of a fair trial. The government should instruct the Embassy in Rome that a diplomat should always be present during court proceedings. It should not accept Italy’s pleas that this would not be possible when confidential information is being presented before the court. If the Italians had gone to the extreme in supporting the marines, India must not show any laxity in securing justice for Pink and Valentine even in an Italian court.
For executive and judiciary
•This is also a time for the executive and judicial branches of the Indian state to introspect on how they handled the whole affair politically, diplomatically and legally. A number of questions arise. Some of these are: Was it prudent to appoint the National Investigation Agency to handle the case after the Supreme Court had ordered for a special court to be set up to try the marines? Should virtually terrorism charges have been levelled against the marines only to be dropped later? Should the Supreme Court not have decided the jurisdiction and immunity issues ab initio instead of leaving them open? Should not have ways been found to counter Italy causing deliberate delays to thwart the trial from commencing? This is especially important, for it used these delays to build sympathy for the marines in the EU.
•As a good international citizen, India has accepted the tribunal’s award. Now it must ensure that Italy fully honours it. The matter remains open.
📰 Re-enfranchise the forgotten voter
There must be the political will to usher in a ‘One Nation One Voter ID’ to ensure ballot portability
•In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has made it possible for senior citizens above the age of 65 to vote by postal ballot, given that they are at greater risk from exposure to the novel coronavirus. Hitherto, this option was available only to disabled citizens and those above 80 years. However, postal ballots may not minimise the risk of infection and it may be better instead to provide separate voting booths for senior citizens.
Migrants on the margins
•Well-thought-out initiatives that facilitate voting and remove obstacles to voters exercising their franchise must be welcomed. We would urge that the same empowering approach be extended to another group which faces enormous difficulties in exercising its franchise: migrant workers.
•The novel coronavirus cataclysm and the subsequent national lockdown brought to centre stage the magnitude of internal migration and hardships that migrant workers endure in their quest for livelihoods. The stark indignity that many of them endured on their long march home suggests that they are perceived as being politically powerless.
•Internal migrant workers constitute about 13.9 crore as in the Economic Survey of 2017, that is nearly a third of India’s labour force. They travel across India in search of an economic livelihood, in the construction sector, as domestic work, in brick kilns, mines, transportation, security, agriculture, etc. Many never intend to settle down and wish to return to their native villages and towns once their work is completed or the working season ends. Often they toil in exploitative low-wage jobs, lacking identity and proper living conditions, without access to welfare and unable to exercise their voting rights. Migrant workers become quasi-disenfranchised, forgotten voters because they cannot afford to return home on election day to choose their representatives. The callous attitude toward the plight of migrants exhibited by some State governments leads to the conclusion that this group does not constitute a vote bank worthy of attention.
•Internal migrant workers do not enrol as voters in their place of employment since they find proof of residence hard to provide. Many are seasonal migrants who would rather vote in their villages if they could afford to return home. Since they do not have a vote where they work, their concerns are easy to ignore in their host State. Sometimes, they are targeted for allegedly taking jobs away from the local population.
Task before the ECI
•Ensuring that every Indian who is eligible to vote can do so must be a central mission for the ECI. It is a matter of pride that India currently has over 91.05 crore registered voters and in the 2019 general election, a record 67.4%, i.e., 61.36 crore voters, cast their vote.
•The ECI would do well to focus attention on the one-third, a substantial 29.68 crore, who did not cast their vote. National Election Study surveys have shown that about 10% of registered voters refrain from voting due to a lack of interest in politics. That leaves approximately 20 crore voters who want to vote but are unable to do so.
•Of these there are about three crore Non Resident Indians (NRIs). Only about one lakh NRIs have registered to vote, presumably because voting requires their physical presence in India. Of them, about 25,000 voted in the 2019 elections. To enable NRIs to exercise their franchise, the government brought in legislation in the previous Lok Sabha to enable voting through authorised proxies. While the legislation lapsed, it is interesting to contrast the concern for NRIs with the lack thereof for poor migrant workers.
Yes, there is a model
•Does our system enable any form of voter portability that can serve as a model for re-enfranchising migrant workers? Yes. Service voters (government employees) posted away from home can vote through the Electronically Transmitted Postal Ballot System (ETPBS). Classified service voters (e.g., military personnel) can do so through their proxies. The ECI has said that it is testing an Aadhaar-linked voter-ID based solution to enable electors to cast their votes digitally from anywhere in the country. It will be some time in the future before this becomes a functional reality. While developing this solution, we must ensure that the linkage with Aadhaar does not result in the exclusion of eligible individuals.
•To facilitate voting by migrant workers, the ECI could undertake substantial outreach measures using the network of District Collectorates. Migrants should be able to physically vote in their city of work based on the address on their existing voter IDs and duration of their temporary stay. In an age where banking transactions have gone online seamlessly, it is technologically feasible to record and transfer votes to their respective constituencies without compromising on the credibility of the election process.
•The COVID-19 crisis mobilised governments and non-governmental organisations to set up registers and portals to reach out to migrant workers. A ‘One Nation One Ration Card’ is being ushered in to enable migrant workers and their family members to access Public Distribution System benefits from any fair price shop in the country. Similarly, voting must be viewed not just as a civic duty but as a civic right. We must demonstrate the political will to usher in ‘One Nation One Voter ID,’ to ensure native ballot portability and empower the forgotten migrant voter. Once migrant workers get to exercise their franchise, we expect that we will see a change in how they are treated.
•A quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson goes: “We... do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” Ensuring that every Indian voter can participate in elections is imperative to ensure a democratically inclusive India.
