📰 Chief Justice of India rues ‘sorry state of affairs’ in lawmaking
“Ambiguity in laws triggering litigation and causing inconvenience to citizens”
•Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana on Sunday lamented the “sorry state of affairs” of law-making and Parliamentary debate in the country, saying there was “a lot of ambiguity in laws” which was triggering litigation and causing inconvenience to citizens, courts and other stakeholders.
•Speaking on the occasion of the 75th Independence Day celebrations held at the Supreme Court lawns, Chief Justice Ramana rued how the standards of law-making had fallen over the years.
•“Now it is a sorry state of affairs. There is a lot of ambiguity in the laws. We don’t know for what purpose they are made. They are causing a lot of litigation and inconvenience to the people, courts...” Chief Justice Ramana said.
•The CJI's observations follow closely after the Parliament cleared the Tribunal’s Reforms Bill of 2021, which has sought the abolishment of as many as nine appellate tribunals, including the Film Certificate Appellate Tribunals despite Opposition charge that the legislation undermined the independence of the judiciary. The Bill has also revived provisions of tenure and service of Tribunals' Members which were earlier struck down by the Supreme Court in a judgment.
•The CJI, in his speech on Sunday, mentioned how lawyers had led the nation, right from the struggle for Independence to being the first legislators of the country.
•“Then the debates and discussions in the House were constructive. They could elaborately discuss the legislation taking place... Laws used to be discussed and deliberated... Unfortunately, over a period of time... you know what is happening in the House. In the absence of quality debate, courts are unable to fathom the intent and object of the new laws,” the CJI addressed an audience of judges and lawyers.
•Chief Justice Ramana said the lack of intellectual heft witnessed in the House could be remedied if more lawyers actively participated in public life rather than confine themselves to their legal practice and homes.
•He said leaders of the Independence struggle were lawyers, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru.
•“They sacrificed not only their professions but also their families and property for the struggle...” the CJI exhorted.
•The contributions of the Supreme Court to democratic rights enshrined in the Constitution had been immense over the years.
•The CJI also noted that the fundamental right of access to justice was evident from the fact that India’s legal services aid machinery catered to 75% of its total population. The Chief Justice said seminars and legal workshops were being planned for the Constitution Day.
•In his address, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to the Chief Justice of India as the ‘karta’ of the legal family. Mr. Mehta said the nation had been “able to sustain democracy as envisaged by our Fathers”.
With 10 posts open in the apex court and 455 across 25 High Courts
•Justice Rohinton Nariman’s retirement and the entry of Justice L. Nageswara Rao into the powerful five-judge Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, comes at a crucial time when judicial vacancies in the Supreme Court are set to climb to 10 with the retirement of Justice Navin Sinha in three days.
•The present Collegium of Chief Justice Ramana, Justices U.U. Lalit, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Rao will remain intact for about 10 months and could even script history by appointing a woman judge who can one day be India's first woman Chief Justice of India.
•Justice Rao, a direct appointee from the Bar, may evince interest to have more direct appointments from the Supreme Court Bar to the Bench of the highest court, given the exhortations from the Bar. Justice Rao would also be the first to exit the Collegium with his retirement in June 2022, followed by Justice Khanwilkar in July and Chief Justice Ramana himself in August the same year.
•Justice Lalit would then take over as top judge as per seniority. His tenure as Chief Justice of India will however, be of just a little over two months till November 2022. Justice Chandrachud, again as per seniority, would succeed Justice Lalit as CJI till November 2024.
•Judicial appointments to the Supreme Court have remained frozen since September 2019. That year saw 10 appointments to the Supreme Court in three batches. Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjeev Khanna were appointed in January 2019. Following this, Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, Aniruddha Bose and A.S. Bopanna were appointed in May 2019. The last batch of Supreme Court appointments in September 2019 were of Justices Krishna Murari, S. Ravindra Bhat, V. Ramasubramanian and Hrishikesh Roy. The oldest vacancy is that of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who had retired in November 2019.
•The tenure of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde did not see a single judicial appointment to the Supreme Court though frequent discussions were held by the Collegium. Justice Bobde’s tenure as CJI had to weather the break-out of an unprecedented crisis in the form of COVID-19.
•The present Collegium, with time on its side and improving public health situation, could remedy the drop in judicial strength in the Supreme Court. Proportionate representation from High Courts and seniority, though only conventions and not constitutional or legal mandates, carry weight during appointment process. Merit is a dominant criterion.
•According to the Law Ministry records of August 1, the senior most Chief Justices of High Courts, as per their initial appointments in 2003, 2004 and 2005, are Karnataka Chief Justice A.S. Oka in 2003, followed by Delhi Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Tripura Chief Justice A.A. Kureshi. Both Chief Justices Patel and Kureshi share the same date of initial appointment — March 7, 2004. Gujarat Chief Justice Vikram Nath was initially appointed in September 2004 while Uttarakhand Chief Justice R.S. Chauhan, Punjab and Haryana Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Sikkim Chief Justice J.K. Maheshwari were all initially appointed in 2005. The parent High Courts of these judges, except in the cases of Chief Justices Jha and Maheshwari, are already represented in the Supreme Court. The parent High court of the two judges is Madhya Pradesh.
•On the criterion of proportionate representation, according to the Ministry records, Patna Chief Justice Sanjay Karol’s parent High Court of Himachal Pradesh is not represented in the Supreme Court currently. Similarly, Rajasthan Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty’s parent High Court of Orissa is also not represented in the apex court. There would be no representation from Patna High Court in the Supreme Court after the exit of Justice Navin Sinha on August 18. Jharkhand Chief Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan’s parent High Court is Patna.
•Telangana Chief Justice Hima Kohli is the sole woman High Court Chief Justice now. The name of Justice B.V. Nagarathna from Karnataka High Court was reported some months ago to be under consideration to replace Justice Indu Malhotra’s vacancy in the Supreme Court.
•An equally serious issue is the fading judicial strength in the 25 High Courts. Ministry figures of August reveal 455 judicial vacancies in the High Courts where the total sanctioned strength is 1098. This is less than 50%.
•A few days ago, a Supreme Court Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul lashed out at the Centre’s delay, for months and years on end, to act on the recommendations of the Collegium and appoint judges to High Courts. The Bench recorded in an order that the government’s “recalcitrant attitude” has affected the early adjudication of important cases, especially high-stake commercial issues.
📰 Memories: On remembering Partition
Remembering Partition by involving Pakistan and Bangladesh would have been more apt
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement, followed by a gazette notification, to mark August 14 as “Partition Horrors Remembrance Day” 74 years later has received mixed responses. With about two million killed in the most brutal ways, an estimated 1,00,000 women kidnapped and raped, and more than 15 million men, women and children displaced, Partition, the British Raj’s parting shot to India, left an indelible mark in hearts and memories across the subcontinent. For India in particular, that lost its territory and its people to the west and the east, the decision was a painful cleaving that marred much of the joy felt in gaining Independence. The violence that was unleashed by the decision pitted Indians against Indians, Hindus and Sikhs against Muslims, with the worst of the horrors seen in Punjab and Bengal — States that were partitioned in the most mindless and thoughtless display of colonial insensitivity. These stories have remained in public memory, as India consciously chose to set aside its pain and greet Pakistan on its birth, and attempted to carve out a distinct secular identity as it sought to develop itself. The scars were not forgotten, but borne with fortitude and a desire to move on from them. Along the way, the two-nation theory based on religion alone — that Pakistan’s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah fought for so bitterly — disintegrated with the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. Other developments have also helped heal the wounds of Partition, not the least, India’s successes over the past three-quarters of a century, including a growing economy, its technological prowess, and as a respected voice on the global stage.
•There is no question that a nation cannot know itself without knowing its past, and that the horrors of Partition must be acknowledged, archived, mourned and commemorated. The concern over the naming of the day at this point, however, is that it forces the nation to look back on this traumatic time rather than looking ahead. Given that the trauma was felt not just in India but in three countries, an attempt to mark the day across the subcontinent might have been more inclusive. It is necessary too, to remember not just the violence of 1947 but also the colonial hand that wrought Partition, hold the British Empire to account, and educate successive generations on the perils of imperialism, arbitrary map-making and sowing religious divides in order to rule. The Prime Minister’s reasoning, that the nation must be reminded of the “need to remove the poison of social divisions, disharmony and further strengthen the spirit of oneness, social harmony and human empowerment”, is welcome, but this is an effort to be practised every day, not just one day in the year.
📰 An oath in whose name?
The allegiance of a person holding a constitutional post should be only to the Constitution
•Some Cabinet Ministers in Karnataka who took oath recently stood out from the rest. Prabhu Chauhan took the oath in the name of Gaumata and ‘Seva Lal’. Murugesh Nirani took oath in the name of God and farmers. Anand Singh took oath in the name of Vijayanagara Virupaksha and Bhuvaneshwari. All these oaths run against the spirit of the Constitution.
An agnostic Constitution
•During the Constituent Assembly debate on October 17, 1949, the last item to be debated was the Preamble. B.R. Ambedkar proposed the Preamble, “We, the people of India…”. H.V. Kamath moved an amendment to the Preamble, “In the name of God, we, the people of India…”. To this proposal, another member,A. Thanu Pillai, said, “If Mr. Kamath’s amendment is accepted... would not that amount to compulsion in the matter of faith?... It affects the fundamental right of freedom of faith. A man has a right to believe in God or not, according to the Constitution... This amendment should be ruled out...”.
•Another member, Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, said, “What does Bande Mataram mean? It means an invocation to a Goddess... We who belong to the Sakthi cult protest against invoking the name of God alone, completely ignoring the Goddess... May I move an amendment to that of Shri Kamath that instead of ‘in the name of God’, would he be pleased to accept ‘in the name of Goddess’?”
•H.N. Kunzru opposed Kamath’s amendment stating, “I do not see why in a matter that vitally concerns every man individually, the collective view should be forced on anybody. Such a course of action is inconsistent with the Preamble which promises liberty to thought, expression, belief, faith and worship to everyone... We invoke the name of God, but I make bold to say that while we do so, we are showing a narrow, sectarian spirit, which is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution...”.
•In the end, the President of the Assembly put Kamath’s amendment to vote. The amendment was defeated, thereby excluding ‘God’ from the Preamble. Thus, our founding fathers gave us an agnostic Constitution.
•Constitutional oaths should be secular. Abhinav Chandrachud, in Republic of Religion, pointed out that public officials who took office under the Government of India Act, 1935 had to take oath which had no mention of God. However, the framers of the Constitution rejected this conception of secularism and brought ‘God’ back into the Constitution by giving office-holders an option to swear in God’s name if they so wished. This was a regressive step.
•The U.S. Constitution contains no reference to God. While it is customary for the U.S. President to utter the words: “So, help me God...” at the end of the oath, the Constitution does not require it.
Calling for an amendment
•The Supreme Court of India observed in 2012 that the oath by an elected representative should be taken “in the name of God” if the person is a believer or should be “solemnly affirmed” if the person is a non-believer. The case pertained to an MLA, Umesh Challiyil, whose oath had been declared void by the Kerala High Court. Mr. Challiyil had taken oath in the name of Sri Narayana Guru, whom he said he considers and believes as God. Mr. Challiyil challenged the High Court order. While taking up the matter, the Supreme Court said that the oath of an elected representative should be in strict compliance with the wordings of the Constitution. In the light of this verdict, the oaths of the Karnataka Cabinet Ministers would be null and void.
•The allegiance of a person holding a constitutional post should only be to the Constitution. Once such a person takes the oath in the name of a God affiliated to a particular religion or caste, citizenry cannot expect the absence of affection or ill-will from him. As the Republic belongs to all the citizenry, irrespective of whether he is a theist, atheist or agnostic, and irrespective of his caste or religion, a person occupying a constitutional post should take oath in the format of ‘“solemnly affirm”. The Constitution should be amended accordingly.
📰 On August 15, 1947, where was Bapu?
This is then a day to reflect on how far India has travelled. Or has the country travelled far?
•While Delhi, the national capital, was being decked up for the grand celebration of Independence and the transfer of power, and Indians geared up to celebrate Independence, where was the man who had helmed the fight for Independence? Where was Bapu?
In Beliaghata
•He was far away, in Calcutta, resolute in his efforts to bring peace and calm to a place that was burning with violence and hatred. The words and actions of Bapu doused the flames.
•The historic events bear recounting as India celebrates a landmark anniversary of Independence. The conditions were anything but peaceful then; today, 75 years down the line, conditions are not far from reigniting the fires that burned then. This is then a day to reflect on how far we have travelled. Or have we travelled far?
•On the evening of August 6, Bapu boarded the Calcutta Mail at Lahore; it would take him to Patna and then Calcutta from where he planned to leave for Noakhali (now in Bangladesh), where he had promised the minority community that he would shield them when Partition happened and East Bengal became East Pakistan.
•Bapu arrived in Calcutta on August 9, 1947. A delegation of Muslims, led by the chief of Calcutta District Muslim League, Mohammad Usman, pleaded with Bapu to remain in Calcutta to ensure the safety of Muslims. Bapu told them he would delay going to Noakhali if they guaranteed the safety and wellbeing of the minority community in Noakhali. If, despite their promise, there was violence in Noakhali, he would go on an unconditional fast unto death.
•On August 11, Bapu met with H.S. Suhrawardy, the former Premier of Bengal. Suhrawardy too voiced his concern about the safety of Muslims. Bapu asked him to stand guarantee for the safety of the Hindus in Noakhali if he wished for him to stay back in Calcutta. Suhrawardy promised. Bapu told him, “I will remain if you and I are prepared to live together. We shall have to work till every Hindu and Mussalman in Calcutta safely returns to the place where he was before. We shall continue in our effort till our last breath...”
•It was decided that Bapu and Suhrawardy would meet and live in Hyderi Mansion (now preserved as Gandhi Bhawan) in Beliaghata, the dilapidated and abandoned home of a Muslim family, in a densely populated neighbourhood of very poor Muslims.
•Bapu and Suhrawardy were greeted by an angry mob of young Hindu hotheads who were furious with Bapu for coming to the rescue of Muslims. Bapu tried to pacify them, but they persisted; their angry protest continued the next day, too.
•Bapu told them, “I am going to put myself under your protection. You are welcome to play the opposite role if you so choose. I have nearly reached the end of my life’s journey. I have not much farther to go. But let me tell you that if you again go mad, I will not be a living witness to it. I have given the same ultimatum to the Muslims of Noakhali, too; I have earned the right. Before there is another outbreak of Muslim madness in Noakhali, they will find me dead.”
•Speaking at the prayer meeting at Beliaghata on the evening of August 14, Bapu invited everyone to observe a 24-hour fast and pray for the wellbeing of India and to spend the day hand-spinning.
•After the prayers, Hyderi Mansion was again attacked. Stones crashed against the windows, shattering glass panes and showering Bapu and the occupants with fragments of glass. The wooden shutters were hurriedly closed. Finally, in order to pacify the mob Bapu stood at a window and spoke with them. When he felt that he had calmed the mob, he called Suhrawardy. Suhrawardy stood next to Bapu, framed in the window illuminated by streetlights, Bapu placed a hand on Suhrawardy’s shoulder; Suhrawardy unequivocally accepted responsibility for the Calcutta killings and expressed his sincere regrets for the tragedy he had caused. This had a profound effect on the crowd. “It was the turning point,” Bapu said. “It had a cleansing effect.”
•It was around 11 when the rooms occupied by Bapu and his tiny retinue were cleaned. After spinning his regulation quota of khadi yarn, his daily bread labour, Bapu lay down to rest; soon he was fast asleep.
•At midnight on August 14-15, 1947, Indians rejoiced. India was free. In the Central Hall of Parliament, in a grand ceremony, the British relinquished power and the interim government took charge. India heard the “tryst with destiny” speech made by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, which would be oft-quoted later in India’s history, a testimony to its soul-stirring narrative of what India set out to achieve. But the man who had made that tryst possible was fast asleep, on a thin mattress, in a dilapidated home, in the densely populated poor neighbourhood of Beliaghata in Calcutta, oblivious to all the rejoicing and the celebration.
•On August 15, 1947, Independence Day, Bapu woke up at 3:45 a.m. He followed his usual daily routine. He received several messages of congratulations, but he was not celebrating. He was praying, fasting and spinning khadi. On Independence Day itself, a large crowd gathered around the Governor’s mansion in Calcutta and laid siege to it, unmindful that now its occupant was an Indian, C. Rajagopalachari. The newly appointed Governor of Bengal was held hostage in the Raj Bhavan for several hours by Indians on Independence Day.
•Bapu sent a message to the ministers of the cabinet of West Bengal. He wrote, “From today, you have to wear the crown of thorns. Strive ceaselessly to cultivate truth and non-violence. Be humble. Be forbearing. Now, you will be tested through and through. Beware of power; power corrupts. Do not let yourselves be entrapped by its pomp and pageantry. Remember, you are in office to serve the poor in India’s villages.”
Together in joy
•At the prayer meeting that evening, Bapu congratulated Calcutta for the camaraderie displayed by Hindus and Muslims. Muslims shouted the same slogans of joy as the Hindus. They flew the tricolour without the slightest hesitation. What was more, the Hindus were admitted to mosques and Muslims were admitted to mandirs. Bapu had hoped that Calcutta would be entirely free from the communal virus forever. Then, indeed, they need have no fear about East Bengal and the rest of India.
•“Shaheed and I are living together in a Muslim Manzil in Beliaghata where Muslims have been reported to be sufferers. Now, it seemed as if there never had been bad blood between the Hindus and the Muslims. As I have said above, we are living in a Muslim’s house and Muslim volunteers are attending to our comforts with the greatest attention... Is this to be called a miracle or an accident? I only ask myself whether the dream of my youth is to be realised in the evening of my life.…”
•This is the wish with which Bapu ended his day, the day that India became independent in 1947.
📰 Digitised land records being checked for errors
Task is particularly huge in Chennai
•The Revenue Department has started a massive exercise to correct errors in the digitised land records.
•The exercise comes after landowners have said they have been made to run from pillar to post — and pay bribes in some cases — to get their records corrected in the digitised pattas. The task is particularly huge in Chennai and its neighbouring districts.
Directions issued
•A senior official of the Revenue Department said directions were issued for a mass correction of spelling errors and factual mistakes.
•The records, which were digitised a few years ago, were found to have spelling mistakes, changes in the names and wrong street numbers.
Meeting with Tahsildars
•The official said that since the process of correction was complicated, the Revenue Divisional Officers (RDOs) were asked to call a meeting of the Tahsildars (three to four Tahsildars come under one RDO).
•The RDOs and the Tahsildars would verify the entries, irrespective of the complaints. The process started this month, but no time frame was set for its completion.
•The official said the number of complaints about mistakes was high in Chennai and in the neighbouring districts of Thiruvallur, Kancheepuram and Chengalpattu, as sale transactions were more in these districts. In villages and other parts of the State, the sale of land and subdivided property was few, and so the errors were fewer. Irrespective of the number of complaints, the Department would check each digitised record against the document copies and correct the errors.
•The Department had also begun automatic name transfer of pattas after the sale deeds were executed in the Department of Registration. The automatic name transfer was launched in February this year by linking the land records with the Department of Registration. Buyers have been facing hardships to get the name transfer once the sale is completed. The name transfer is a simple process, unless any subdivision is involved, but buyers are made to wait for long.
•The official of the Revenue Department said the name transfer of pattas in cases where no subdivision of land was involved would happen at the registration office after the sale was completed. The system was simplified with minimum human intervention. However, since the contact numbers of the buyers were not captured in “most” cases, the alerts through SMS did not reach the beneficiaries. “We are advising officials of the Registration Department to get the details of the buyers, along with their contact numbers, for sending the SMS for the name transfer of pattas,” he said.
📰 India’s fate is tied to the rest of the world
It was through its global interactions that India defined itself throughout its history as an independent nation
•Ever since Independence, India’s fate has been closely tied to the rest of the world. In some sense, it had no choice. A large, newly independent, impoverished, and impossibly diverse country required active engagement with a variety of partners for its survival, security, and development.
•But a constantly evolving international environment presented India not just with opportunities but numerous challenges. Its frontiers were initially poorly demarcated and poorly integrated. India came to have two nuclear-armed neighbours with which it competed for territory. Several sources of domestic insecurity benefited from support from neighbouring countries. And India often found itself at odds with the great powers, ploughing a lonely furrow when it felt its greater interests were threatened, as on intervention in Bangladesh, nuclear non-proliferation, or trade.
An overview
•Today, the troubles may seem plenty leading with the raging COVID-19 pandemic and its adverse effects on economic growth prospects, especially when coupled with intensifying competition with China and turmoil in Afghanistan. At the same time, India has greater means to tackle them: it is by some measures the sixth largest economy in the world, boasts a well-trained and professional military, and has a growing network of international strategic and economic partners. This brief overview suggests that India’s future, too, will remain intertwined with global affairs.
The long and winding road
•India had to adopt a foreign and security posture even before August 15, 1947. Independence and Partition left behind a messy territorial legacy. India’s first leaders opted for flexible and friendly relations with both the U.S. and the Soviet Union and their respective allies. In fact, India initially received the bulk of development and military assistance from the West; it was only from the mid-1950s onwards that the Soviet Union extended support. India also played an activist role in the decolonising world, extending diplomatic and (in some cases) security assistance to independence movements in Asia and Africa and sending military missions to Korea and the Congo.
•India’s early efforts were arguably successful in consolidating territorial gains, in accelerating economic growth, and in positioning itself in a leadership role in the post-colonial world. But all these efforts suffered following the 1962 war with China. Despite that immense setback, the world came knocking at India’s door throughout the 1960s. Pakistani military adventurism picked up, resulting in the 1965 war. The question of Indian nuclear weapons acquired greater urgency following China’s test, even as Indian forces pushed back against China in Sikkim in 1967. There were also important economic strides made, including the Green Revolution, undertaken with considerable foreign technical and financial assistance.
•The 1970s and the 1980s presented India with a more contained canvas. The Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation and the Bangladesh war altered India’s relations with both superpowers and shifted the dynamics of the rivalry with Pakistan. The Indian economy remained relatively closed at a time when other Asian economies had begun to liberalise. This period saw security challenges come closer to home: the peaceful nuclear explosion, the annexation of Sikkim, competition with Pakistan over Siachen, a stand-off with China, an intervention in Sri Lanka, and a countercoup in the Maldives. Domestic security challenges also assumed an external angle, whether in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, Tamil Nadu, or the North-east. Some efforts at resetting relations with the United States, liberalising the economy, and pursuing the nuclear option were made, but the outcomes were inconclusive.
After the Cold War
•The post-Cold War era, therefore, presented India with a range of challenges. The 1991 Gulf war resulted in a balance of payments crisis and the liberalisation of the economy. India then adopted a range of reforms to liberalise the economy, but it faced more than just economic turmoil. The assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, the 1993 Mumbai bombings, and the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir presented grave new security challenges. Yet, the period that followed witnessed some important developments under the prime ministership of P.V. Narasimha Rao: the advent of the Look East Policy and relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations; the establishment of diplomatic ties with Israel; the signing of a border peace and tranquility agreement with China; initial military contacts with the U.S., and preparations for nuclear tests.
•The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government built further upon these developments, conducting a series of tests in 1998, negotiating a return to normal relations with most major powers within two years, and concluding an important set of agreements with China in 2003. At the same time, efforts at normalising ties with Pakistan were frustrated by the Kargil war, the hijacking of Indian Airlines flight IC-814 to Kandahar (Afghanistan), and the 2001 attack on India’s Parliament. These years also witnessed a rapid growth of the Indian economy, fuelled by a boom in information and communication technology companies, the services sector, and a rising consumer market.
•After 2004, the Manmohan Singh government worked extensively to resolve the outstanding question of India’s nuclear status. By eliminating barriers to ‘dual use’ technologies and equipment, as well as a host of associated export controls, India had the opportunity to establish robust defence relations with the U.S. and its allies. Yet, the global financial crisis in 2008-09 presaged a slight change in approach, whereby India sought to partner with China and other rising powers on institutional reform, financial lending, climate change, and sovereignty. Coupled with an economic deceleration after 2011, India’s relations with the U.S. and Europe grew more contentious over the next three years.
•Beginning in 2013, a more assertive China began to test India on the border and undermine Indian interests in South Asia and the Indian Ocean Region. After the second such border crisis in late 2014, a more competitive India-China relationship emerged. With further stand-offs at Doklam and Ladakh between 2017 and 2021, India opted to boycott China’s Belt and Road Initiative, raise barriers to Chinese investment, ban some Chinese technology, and consult more closely with other balancing powers in the Indo-Pacific. Security relations and understandings with the U.S. and its allies (Japan, France, Australia) accelerated after 2014. A greater emphasis on neighbourhood connectivity was adopted. While efforts were made to engage with Pakistan between 2014 and 2016, a series of Pakistani provocations resulted in a deep freeze in India-Pakistan relations, further reinforced by the terrorist attacks at Uri and Pulwama and Indian reprisals. Meanwhile, India’s relations with West Asian partners assumed greater importance.
An international India
•India’s objectives have been broadly consistent: development, regional security, a balance of power, and the shaping of international consensus to be more amenable to Indian interests. At the same time, India’s means and the international landscape have changed, as have domestic political factors. This necessitated different approaches to international engagement between 1947 and 1962, between 1971 and 1991, and between 1991 and 2008.
•As India enters its 75th year of independence, there are plenty of reasons for cautious optimism about its place in the world. Yet, the ravages of COVID-19 and growing international competition also underscore the difficulties that India will likely face as it attempts to transform into a prosperous middle-income country, a secure polity, and a proactive shaper of international norms. What is certain is that India will not have the luxury to turn inwards. In fact, it was through its global interactions that India defined itself throughout its history as an independent nation.
