India's Evolving Foreign Policy: Navigating the Israel-Gaza Conflict
Historical Background:
India’s foreign policy post-independence was shaped by a commitment to “strategic autonomy” and non-alignment during the Cold War. Its anti-colonial stance often led to alignments with the USSR against the West, although its commitment to democracy garnered support from Western liberals.
Initial Approach to Israel-Palestine:
In 1947, India voted against the partition of Palestine, drawing parallels with its own experience of British-driven partition. Despite later recognizing Israel, relations remained at consular level for over four decades. India’s support for the PLO and the two-state solution showcased its commitment to the Palestinian cause.
Shift in Relations with Israel:
The rise of Islamic militancy prompted India to forge closer ties with Israel, given shared security concerns. This marked a turning point in bilateral relations, leading to increased defense cooperation and intelligence sharing. The personal rapport between Prime Ministers Modi and Netanyahu highlighted the deepening connection.
India’s Response to Recent Events:
Following the recent terror attacks in Israel, Prime Minister Modi expressed swift solidarity, signaling a one-sided approach. However, as the conflict escalated, India’s stance evolved. The External Affairs Ministry supported the resumption of direct negotiations for a two-state solution. While India abstained from a UN resolution, its subsequent vote for a humanitarian ceasefire demonstrated a nuanced position.
Changing Dynamics in India’s Foreign Policy:
Under Prime Minister Modi, India’s foreign policy has witnessed significant shifts. The country’s increased alignment with the United States, evident in the “I2U2” quadrilateral dialogue, reflects changing geopolitical dynamics, especially concerning China. The announcement of the India-Middle East-Europe-Economic Corridor (IMEC) signifies a broader reorientation.
Conclusion:
India’s approach to the Israel-Gaza conflict reflects a complex journey from historical anti-colonialism to nuanced alignment based on evolving geopolitical realities. As India reassesses its global position, the Gaza crisis serves as a manifestation of the changing contours of its foreign policy.
Background of Mahua Moitra:
– Articulate and politically savvy individual.
– Graduated from Mount Holyoke College, worked as an investment banker, became Vice President at JP Morgan.
– Joined Indian National Congress in 2009, later joined Trinamool Congress and elected to Parliament in 2019.
Allegations Against Mahua Moitra:
– MP Nishikant Dubey filed a complaint alleging Moitra received material benefits for asking questions in Parliament.
– Accused of sharing her Parliament ID and password with an industrialist, Darshan Hiranandani, who asked questions about rival Adani Group.
– Ethics Committee recommended her expulsion based on allegations of sharing credentials and receiving gifts.
– Moitra admitted to the accusations, including sharing her ID and receiving gifts.
– Ethics Committee’s report led to a motion for expulsion, adopted through a voice vote on December 8.
Issues Raised by Moitra and Giridhari Yadav:
– Both Moitra and Giridhari Yadav claimed that MPs don’t frame their own questions, which undermines Parliament’s reputation.
– Writer emphasizes the importance of parliamentary questions as a potent instrument for members to ensure democracy’s vitality.
– Writer refutes the claim that MPs don’t draft their questions, citing personal experience and commitment to the parliamentary process.
Concerns About Consultant Engagement in Government:
– Rising dependence on consulting firms for government projects, including policy formulation and program implementation.
– Government reportedly paid around Rs 5,000 million in fees to global consulting firms in the last five years.
– Concerns include hollowing out government capabilities, excessive dependence on consultants for routine functions, and potential lobbying for repeat work.
– Global concerns about the impact of consultants on public policy objectives, potential corruption, and the term “consultocracy” coined to describe their permeation into government functions.
Rationale for Consultant Engagement:
– Increasing complexity of expertise needed for effective program formulation and service delivery.
– Digitization of public service delivery demands specialized technical expertise.
– Limited availability of diverse skills within government necessitates external expertise.
– Advocates for a carefully regulated engagement framework to ensure fairness, transparency, and prevent rent-seeking behaviors.
Conclusion:
– The era of consulting firms in public policy formulation and implementation is acknowledged.
– The writer emphasizes the need for a normative and transparent regulatory framework to ensure the quality and effectiveness of public service delivery while preventing potential pitfalls associated with unregulated consultant engagements.
Introduction:
The government’s swift withdrawal and subsequent reintroduction of criminal law bills, namely Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS-II), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS-II), and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill (BSB-II), prompt an analysis of the final changes.
This editorial highlight concerns over the lack of a transformative vision for criminal law and justice, pointing towards an alarming expansion of state control through overcriminalization and widened police powers.
Impact on Civil Liberties:
- A critical aspect of BNSS-II, often overlooked, is the significant extension of police custody duration.
- The BNSS proposes an expansion from 15 days to either 60 or 90 days, raising serious concerns about civil liberties protection.
- This expansion increases the risk of police excesses, coerced evidence, and fabricated charges, resembling provisions previously limited to “special laws.”
Overcriminalization in BNS:
- The BNSS introduces broad and vague offenses, particularly those aimed at safeguarding the state’s security.
- Despite removing the term “sedition,” surrogate offenses like “Acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” maintain ambiguous language.
- The Bills criminalize misinformation, introduce expansive definitions of “organised crime” and “terrorist act,” and add a vaguely worded offense of “petty organized crime,” contributing to overcriminalization.
Ambiguities and Lack of Clarity:
- While efforts are made to clarify certain offenses in BNS-II, ambiguities persist.
- The alignment of the definition of “terrorist act” with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 raises questions about the applicability of BNS for terror-related offenses.
- A provision granting discretion to a Superintendent of Police lacks guidance on decision-making criteria.
Positive Aspects Dependent on Transformations:
- The Bills emphasize timelines and technology for efficiency and fairness.
- Mandatory audio-video recording of search and seizure enhances police accountability, but achieving the goals of speedy justice and effective investigation requires addressing deep structural barriers.
- Vacancies in the judiciary, infrastructure issues, and the validity of forensic methods pose challenges to the Bills’ positive aspects.
Missed Opportunity for Systemic Correction:
- The Bills, despite some changes between versions, miss the opportunity to correct entrenched injustices in the criminal justice system.
- Rather than decolonizing criminal law, they entrench colonial logic, emphasizing state control over comprehensive reform.
- The Bills lack a fundamental change in approach, raising concerns about their ability to address systemic issues.
Conclusion:
The Bills, while addressing certain aspects of criminal law, fall short of delivering transformative changes.
The expansion of police powers, overcriminalization, ambiguities, and a lack of systemic correction undermine the potential positive impacts.
A critical examination of these aspects is essential to ensure a fair and just criminal justice system.
Introduction:
The ongoing conflict in Palestine, triggered by Israeli state actions, has inadvertently exposed the fragility of the concept of academic freedom in the Western world, its birthplace.
The erosion of credibility is evident as protests against the war within American universities face opposition from donors, alumni, and administrators. European governments have passed laws to penalize academic activities critical of Israel, and India has mirrored such suppression tactics.
Misconceptions Surrounding Academic Freedom:
- Misleading Terms: The term “academic” implies impracticality, distancing itself from the everyday world, while “freedom” suggests unrestricted action, fostering a perception of entitlement.
- Specificity to Academia: Academic freedom is distinct from the freedom of expression; it is not a personal privilege but a grant of autonomy to the pursuit of ideas and knowledge within academia.
Nature of Academic Freedom:
1.Intra-academic Norms: Academic freedom is not an absence of constraints; instead, it operates within the stringent norms of the academic world. Claims must be supported by transparent procedures and evidence, subjected to scrutiny and criticism from peers.
- Dual Aspect: The essence of academic freedom lies in autonomy from external diktats while obligating adherence to intra-academic norms.
Significance of Academic Freedom:
- Critical Thinking for Society: Academia, encompassing universities and research institutions, plays a crucial role in thinking on behalf of society. Rigorous testing of ideas, especially dominant ones, is necessary to determine their validity.
- Plurality of Ideas: The world of ideas requires constant questioning and plurality to adapt to changing times. Academic freedom prevents a singular sense of good and bad from prevailing.
- Resistance to Government Control: Academic freedom resists government control, ensuring that academics can think critically for society’s collective future. Unlike government officials, academics are not vested with executive powers.
Challenges to Academic Freedom:
- Potential Government Control: If universities fall under government regulations like the Central Civil Service rules, academics may avoid asking challenging questions or publishing research that displeases the government.
- Dangers of Ideological Control: The imposition of government preferences on academic questions and permissible answers poses a significant threat to academic freedom.
A Glimpse of an Alternative World:
- The recent directive from the University Grants Commission (UGC) urging universities to install “selfie points” featuring the Prime Minister hints at the potential absurdity of government influence.
- While the UGC withdrew its proposal, the incident underscores the need to safeguard academic freedom.
Conclusion:
Academic freedom, crucial for the pursuit of knowledge and critical thinking, faces challenges in the context of geopolitical conflicts.
The Israel-Palestine war serves as a backdrop to reveal the delicate balance between autonomy and accountability within academia, urging societies to safeguard this essential element of intellectual exploration.
