This year, India had been invited for the 46th session as a “guest of honour” as OIC completed its 50th year in 2019. But our relations with OIC are quite old.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) calls itself “the collective voice of the Muslim world” & its stated objective is this:
To safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony among various people of the world.
India has the third largest Muslim population in the world. India is home to about 10% of the world’s Muslims. Any organization genuinely interested in protecting the interests of the world’s Muslims should obviously have India as one of the most important players. All the member countries of the OIC have a majority Muslim population. Russia & Thailand, with a significant Muslim minority, are the observer members of the organization. But, in my opinion, to really “protect the Muslims of the world”, you first need to have countries with significant Muslim minority populations as the members because those are the Muslims who may not have an adequate voice in their country.
So, if India isn’t a member of OIC & it has been invited for the first time in 50 years, we should rather ask,“Why the hell India isn’t a part of OIC yet? Doesn’t this miss the whole point of having an organization to protects the Muslims of the world?”
The preparatory committee that decided the composition of OIC in 1969 led down the following criteria for the countries to be invited for the meeting:
countries having a Muslim majority population; or
those having a Muslim head of state.
Pakistan wanted to paint India as a Hindu country rather than a secular country where Muslims have no place. India’s inclusion in OIC has always been opposed by Pakistan. If India is included in OIC, it means that the government of India actually represents a sizeable number of the world’s Muslims.
This is against the very idea of Pakistan. The two nation theory assumes that the Hindus & Muslims are two nations and Pakistan is the only true guardian of Muslims in the territory of Indian Subcontinent once ruled by the British. India’s inclusion in OIC would have created an identity crisis for Pakistan.
India was actually invited to the first OIC conference & in effect, India is one of the founding members of OIC. While Pakistan felt uneasy with India’s inclusion, it couldn’t muster a valid reason why India shouldn’t be included.
Around the same time, communal violence in Gujarat broke out. It was the first major Hindu-Muslim riot after partition. With this, Pakistan had now found a reason to refuse India’s entry into OIC.
This is what Gurbachan Singh, India’s then ambassador to Morocco, has to say about what happened:
The following day, on the 24th morning, Laraki asked me to see him before the conference was to reconvene. He said that news of the Ahmedabad riots was beginning to cause some disquiet amongst the delegations and suggested, on a personal and friendly basis, that I should not participate in the morning session. I readily agreed and asked the other members of the delegation to attend the conference.
During this time members of all the delegations had waited in the conference hall. Rumours were floating around. It transpired that the president of Pakistan was refusing to leave his villa until he received an assurance that the official Indian delegation would not be permitted to participate in the meeting. Many leaders of delegations attempted to telephone him but reportedly he would not even answer the telephone.
Pakistan didn’t want India to be part of OIC. India was asked if it could accept an observer status. The Indian delegation wasn’t happy with the suggestion. The Moroccan delegation asked India if it would voluntarily withdraw from the conference to ensure the success of the first conference of OIC. India was initially “unanimously” invited to OIC & it was not going to give up the membership due to Pakistan’s antics. India refused to withdraw.
Pakistan’s volte-face, it is evident, was not because of the Ahmedabad riots or a governmental delegation or a Sikh acting leader of the Indian delegation, though all, in turn, were presented as reasons. It is also on record that Pakistan was part of the consensus when an invitation had been extended to the Government of India. The real reason was that, when word got back to Pakistan of the invitation to India, there was a spate of protests in the country including, significantly, by many political opponents of the regime such as Asghar Khan, Bhutto, Mumtaz Daultana and others.
The Indian delegation at OIC was labelled as the “the Muslim community of India” instead of “the government of India” in the final declaration.
India could not accept anything lesser than the member status because it was “unanimously” invited as so. Pakistan, on the other hand, ensured that India wasn’t invited to any subsequent conferences. Pakistan has used OIC to garner support for its Kashmir cause. In the 1990s, it doubled down on the particular issue. So, India wanted to be part of the OIC to present its side of the story. But Pakistan thwarted all such efforts.
Now, that the major countries like Saudi Arabia & UAE want to be on India’s good books due to India’s economic rise, they have been trying to rethink India’s position in the OIC.
That’s why we had this “guest of honour” invitation. The anti-India days of OIC are gone & we shouldn’t be worried too much about our inclusion. So, if we are to participate in OIC, it should only be as a member, nothing less than that.
In 1999, the Indian Airline IC 814 was hijacked in Kathmandu by Hurkat-Al-Mujahideen & flown to Kandahar in Afghanistan. The hijackers demanded the release of three terrorists.
One was Maulana Masood Azhar who was also involved in the attacks on the Indian Parliament in 2001. The second terrorist to be released was Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, the subject of the movie ‘Omerta’ by Hansal Mehta who achieved notoriety for the abduction & murder of an American Journalist named Daniel Pearl.
The third was Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar who fomented insurgency in Kashmir & trained terrorists in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
Ajit Doval, who was the chief negotiator then says:
If these people (the hijackers) were not getting active ISI support in Kandahar, we could have got the hijacking vacated. The ISI had removed all the pressure we were trying to put on the hijackers. Even their safe exit was guaranteed, so they had no need to negotiate an escape route.
Apart from this, according to an Indian Army official, at the peak of Taliban rule in Afghanistan:
about 22 per cent of terrorists operating in Jammu and Kashmir were either of Afghan origin or had been trained there.
This ISI-Taliban Yaarana has been a real pain-in-the-arse for India. Why, then, should India engage in dialogue with the Taliban & give this terrorist organization the legitimacy it yearns for?
It’s better to choose to engage with the Taliban now than being forced to talk to them later.
It’s just a matter of time that the US will withdraw a majority of its troops from Afghanistan. What happens next? The Afghan government controls just about half the Afghan territory. The rest is either controlled by the Taliban or it is still a contested area. The Taliban is just getting stronger by the day & if the military conflict goes on, it will just end up occupying more territory.
An International consensus is emerging that a peace process is the only way forward. Any outcome of the peace process will definitely involve the Taliban governing the country or at least sharing the power. The Taliban knows that it is in control & It is supporting the peace only on its own terms. It is inevitable that we will have to engage with the Taliban sooner or later.
Some Contra Points
Firstly, Pakistan uses the Afghan Taliban as a hedge against India.
This should be enough of a reason for India to be reluctant to engage in any dialogue with the Taliban. But even Pakistan doesn’t want a stable government in Afghanistan even if it is ruled by the Taliban. It loves to keep Afghanistan in eternal chaos.
A strengthened Taliban, backed by the ISI, can spread its influence in the neighbouring Pakistan & Kashmir. This too is a big problem for India. Ideally, India would have loved to have a world without the Taliban. But if the Taliban’s ascendance is inevitable, we better extend a hand of friendship or even dialogue to the Taliban. That’s the only way our interest can be secured. An antagonistic Taliban will only make matter worse at the border.
We can hope that a Taliban which will have a country to run will be less subordinate to the wishes of Pakistan. India has gained some goodwill in Afghanistan through its developmental work & any anti-India activity will be an unpopular move by the government. We can also hope that it stops exporting terrorism.
Our Afghanistan policy is mainly determined by two factors— the desire to limit Pakistan’s influence & to gain access to energy markets in Central Asia. Our investments in Chabahar will only bear fruits if the routes through Afghanistan are stable. Central Asian countries like Uzbekistan too have started the dialogue with the Taliban. If the Taliban remains hostile to India, the routes through Afghanistan are not any better than those through Pakistan. Isn’t that something we were trying to avoid through Chabahar?
Taliban’s one-time foe Russia in on the table. Iran & the US are on the table. We don’t have a lot of options. In diplomacy, they say,
If you are Not at the table, you are on the menu.
If India isn’t part of the peace process in Afghanistan, we can expect that our interests will be ignored. There is a need to have a stable government in Afghanistan that doesn’t resort to exporting terrorism. For that, we’ll need to neutralize Afghanistan & not let the Taliban remain the proxy of Pakistan.
In 1992, India’s ally President Mohammad Najibullah was overthrown & a Pakistan-backed Mujaheddin government took power. India duly recognised & engaged with the government.
Why did it do so? The International community backed by the UN supported this transition & the Indian diplomats were able to reach an accommodative policy with the Mujahideen. The new peace process with the Taliban will also have a large number of countries at the table & India should try to secure its interest through diplomacy.
Saudi Arabia may not be Pakistan’s “all weather” friend as China claims to be but the two countries have almost always been there when the other one needed.
From the outset, the two countries “completed” each other— one’s weakness was other’s strength. Together, they looked after each other. Saudi Arabia was & is the spiritual leader of Sunni Islam but lacked human capital. In the 1960s, Saudi Arabia would send the members of its military to Pakistan for training. Pakistan, which got a disproportionate military strength after partition, was good at that job. In the 1960s, it was Pakistani military officers who helped Saudi Arabia a great deal in building an army & air force. By helping Saudi Arabia against Nasser, a republican who overthrew the monarchy in Egypt & helped to do the same in Yemen, the Pakistani military was able to keep its men busy after the 1965 war with India.
In the 1970s, a Pakistani battalion was stationed in Saudi Arabia’s southern border to repulse the Yemenis. Some Pakistani men were also stationed on the border with Israel & Jordan. Nawaf Obeid, a former adviser to the Saudi government from 2004 to 2015 said:
We gave money and the Pakistanis dealt with it as they saw fit… There is no documentation, but there is an implicit understanding that on everything, in particular, on security and military issues, Pakistan will be there for Saudi Arabia.
By the 1970s, Saudi Arabia has become quite wealthy due to oil money. Pakistan, as we know, is naturally great at being nice to the wealthy guys in the gang. After the 1971 war, Pakistani tapped into the Saudi coffers to fund its defence budgets. Whenever it was in economic stress, Saudi Chachu would always come to rescue. Saudis would send massive aid to Pakistan & a large number of military personnel would go the other way. In the 1980s, the Crown Prince Fawad even went on to say that the security of Saudi Arabia was intrinsically tied to that of Pakistan’s.
Pakistan, being too far away, never posed a risk to Saudi’s hegemony in the middle east. So, Saudi Arabia could give massive aid to Pakistan without worrying about the monster getting too large. Add to the equation their relationship with the US; It only reinforced the already great bond. The Saudi-Pakistan relationship has a long history. It’s nothing new.
What should India do?
There’s just one big point where the interest of the two countries diverge— Iran. Saudis hate Iran— they would love if it didn’t exist. Pakistan tries to act with caution in its relations with Iran. They don’t want to get embroiled in the Saudi-Iranian rivalry. Iran & Pakistan both have a significant Baloch population & they would like to keep the border as stable as possible so that the Balochis do not start any trouble. In 2012, Pakistan even refused to join an Arab League-sponsored plan against Iran that was promoted by the Saudis.
If Pakistan is forced to give up its neutral stance in the Iran-Saudi rivalry, that can strain the friendship. We, Indians, should be good to Iranians as well as to Saudis. Anyway, Saudis have considerably brought down their rhetoric against India when it is about the Kashmir issue. Saudis have been trying to be good with India for a good amount of time now. So, it’s better we keep in mind the history of Saudi-Pakistan relationship when we read the news of Saudi-Pak bonhomie.
All men may be created equal but all countries aren’t. There are “haves” & “have nots”. There is a hierarchy of countries where the countries on the lower rungs are patronized by the superpowers as if the “smaller” countries are kids who cannot comprehend the immense damage their toys can have. This is the logic behind the treaty for non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
I understand that nuclear weapons are dangerous— they can kill us, not once but several times over. But if the larger powers cannot trust the Ayatollahs of Iran or the Kims of the North to use their nukes judiciously, how can the larger world trust a buffoon like Trump— who has the braggadocio of calling himself high-IQ— to not annihilate a nation for nothing majorly mad?
John Foster Dulles, the US Secretary of State, familiarised the world about a future of “nuclear plenty” in which
the pettiest & the most irresponsible dictator could get hold of weapons with which to threaten immense harm….
…. [We should] prevent the promiscuous spread of nuclear weapons throughout the world.
So, when in 1967, when the US, USSR, UK, France & China had already acquired the nukes, by making other non-nuclear countries also sign the treaty of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons or the NPT, the larger powers essentially said the following:
You know what, no country should acquire nuclear weapons now. We have them & we’ll keep them. You, on the other hand, must sign these papers & relinquish your right to ever acquire nuclear weapons capability. Yeah, there’s some part in the treaty about nuclear disarmament but who are we kidding, right? You know that’s a joke. And dear India, we are well aware that a nuclear China to your North is a perpetual gun pointed at your head & the Chinese will help Pakistan buy another gun to double your worries. But we don’t care. You must sign the NPT.
With the Non-Proliferation Treaty, every signatory gave up their right to acquire nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the five countries that had nukes in 1967 could keep them. This treaty was extended indefinitely in 1995. It is so clearly discriminatory treaty that creates nuclear “haves” & “have nots”. India has rightly refused to sign it & be a part of what it calls “nuclear apartheid”.
India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974. But it had to abandon its nuclear program for another two decades. In 1998, India declared itself a nuclear power. Until 1998, India was a strong proponent of nuclear non-proliferation & disarmament. The Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan for nuclear disarmament showed immense faith in the power of diplomacy. But China already had nuclear weapons & the Indian intelligence had been warning us that China was helping Pakistan to acquire its own nuclear weapons.
So, what do you think we should have done?
India never signed NPT because it firmly believes that it is a discriminatory regime. Being a non-signatory, other countries were barred from sharing nuclear technology with India even for peaceful purposes (because it can very easily be put to a destructive end).
But finally, the US has come to realize what was at stake for India. In 2008, India was granted “one-of-its-kind” waiver from Nuclear Supplier Group or NSG which takes care of the illegal transfer of nuclear material & technology. It wasn’t the US empathy or something but just pure self-interest. With that, India also accepted to have some of its nuclear facilities inspected by IAEA like the way other NPT signatories have to. India has gradually come to be seen as a legitimate nuclear power without signing the NPT. With its admission into NSG, India will be able to enjoy almost everything that an NPT signatory does.
This essay was written originally in July 2018 as a submission to Indian Council of World Affair’s essay competition. The original title of the essay was “Is India’s foreign policy an instrument of our development?”
“The bottom line for our nation is and will remain, addressing the challenge of development,” Former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh said at the launch of the Indian Foreign Affairs Journal in 2006. Too often, foreign policy is reduced to what Jawaharlal Nehru called the “empty struggles on a chess board”. When a layperson thinks about diplomacy, he may be thinking of just another sport in which a country tries outplaying its opponents by building up its military and economic strength. Diplomats are stereotyped as lotus-eaters living in the glamorous capitals of the world. Then, why does the Prime Minister talk about “growth that is equitable and efficient” and “our quest for development” at the inauguration of a journal by the Association of Indian Diplomats?
Our foreign policy is often misunderstood. In a BBC television show “Hardtalk”, former foreign minister of India K. Natwar Singh was asked about an offer by the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to make India a ‘great power’. He replied:
“We are not in the game of becoming a great power. Our job is to eradicate poverty.”
India’s Foreign Policy is an instrument of our development and our diplomats are the foot-soldiers in the long drawn battle, not against any nation, but against poverty and underdevelopment.
How can a country’s Foreign Policy facilitate its development? It can directly affect development by effective economic diplomacy. Higher economic growth results in more revenue with the State which can then be redistributed through various development schemes. Economic diplomacy includes active Trade promotion and Investment Policy. The country should be able to negotiate various Economic, Financial, Commercial and Environmental agreements to its advantage for creating suitable conditions for its development. All of this directly affects our economic growth as well as its nature.
While the above factors in the economic sphere affects our development directly, the country’s power projection and co-operation with other countries in the political sphere can indirectly contribute to its development by creating an environment for its peaceful development. War-torn countries do not figure high on development indices. We shall discuss how successful our foreign policy has been on the above parameters. I’ve used the terms ‘foreign policy’ and ‘development’ in their most expansive spirit. Foreign Policy, for the purpose of this essay, is not restricted to what Ministry of External affairs does but it encompasses multiple ways in which India collaborates with the world & leverages external resources as opposed to the domestic ones for its development. While economic growth is a good proxy for development, it doesn’t capture all of its aspects. Development, as I understand, includes economic growth, quality education, clean environment, quality healthcare, and everything that allows people to achieve their human potential.
When India awakened to ‘life and freedom’, it was suspicious of foreign trade. The East India Company which started as a trading enterprise had ended up as the master of the Indian subcontinent. India was, therefore, once bitten twice shy. From the 1950s to the early 1990s, in what C. Raja Mohan labels as India’s ‘first republic’, India’s economic diplomacy was largely about promoting exports, ensuring the imports of critical commodities and bringing in bilateral and multilateral development aid.
How could the newly Independent India secure its autonomy in the Cold War when the dominant rhetoric was ‘you are either with us or against us’? The Pulitzer Prize winning American Novelist Cormac McCarthy writes:
“Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favour of the weak.”
This inference is helpful in understanding India’s non-alignment policy especially in Nehru’s India. While Nehru is often portrayed as an idealist for whom foreign policy was an end in itself, non-alignment helped India get development aid from both US as well as USSR. If India didn’t get too close to any of the superpowers, it could be closer to both of them. In the words of an eminent Polish economist Michal Kalecki, India was the “clever calf that suckles from two cows”. External assistance helped India relieve the pressure on the internal resources and keep balance of payment in check at the time of rising investments. US helped India with community development programs in 1950s and it sent technical assistant trainers to Indian villages. India got food aid through US’s PL 480 program. Later, India got technical assistance in agriculture which kindled the Green revolution in India helping us become a food surplus nation from one that was literally living from “ship to mouth”.
The USSR, the other pole of the Cold War, helped India develop steel mills in Bokaro and Bhilai, the Ranchi Heavy Engineering Plant, Bharat Heavy Electricals and Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals. While the intentions behind the aid can be questioned and they were questioned at the time, India was able to get external assistance without giving up its strategic autonomy.
Around the time India achieved its independence, two institutions IMF and the World Bank came into existence. It was largely to meet India’s expanding needs that the World Bank established International Development Association (IDA) which provides soft loans for the poorer countries at concessional rates. India had been the largest borrower from IDA and its graduation from IDA in 2014 is a testament to India’s success in tackling its developmental problems. India collaborates with World Bank on achieving various developmental outcomes. Take for example, the present government’s Rs. 6000 crore scheme called Atal Bhujal Yojana to recharge groundwater. It employs community participation to ensure sustained groundwater management. Similarly, the World Bank’s assistance in Skills India mission, Maharashtra’s Climate resilient agriculture project, Bihar’s Transformative development project, Swachh Bharat Mission, Tejaswini project for young and adolescent girls or North East’s Power project shows that India’s partnership with the World Bank is truly cognizant of various dimensions of development. It is also beneficial to various parts of India especially the poorer states.
When we ask the question “Is India’s foreign policy an instrument of ‘our’ development?”, we ought to restrict the meaning of the word “our” within our national boundaries as foreign policy is a tool to enhance our “national interest” and not the international interest. But India’s leadership of the Third World helped secure the interests of many defenceless nations too. This holds particularly true for India’s activism at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). India was a founder member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the predecessor of the WTO. India’s posture at GATT reflected its concerns for the industrialisation efforts of the newly independent nations. It echoed India’s domestic philosophy as it tried to protect its infant industries which were not competitive enough to survive the international competition. The substance of the argument can be disputed but India was successful in adhering to the agenda set domestically. If India experienced what is pejoratively called ‘the Hindu rate of growth’, foreign policy can hardly be blamed for it. Moreover, the dominant wisdom in development economics at the time affirmed the utility of India’s economic introvertedness. The omission of developmental concerns from the proposed charter of the stillborn International Trade Organisation (ITO) in 1945 had left India and other developing countries thoroughly exasperated. When the US pressed for making the principle of ‘reciprocity’ a foundational principle of GATT, India led the developing world by arguing that their limited domestic market did not offer a level playing field. While the developed world had attained its prosperity after years of high tariffs and regulatory devices, the developing world was asked to open its market as it was just beginning its long walk to development. This conflict will reappear at the WTO. Let’s look at two cases where multilateral trade agreements can practically decide if a person goes to sleep at night without a full stomach and if he can afford the medicine to cure his disease.
In India, agriculture is heavily dependent on rainfall. This gives rise to fluctuation in production and subsequent fluctuation in agricultural prices. To protect the poor consumers and farmers, the Indian government procures agricultural products at Minimum Support Price (MSP) from the farmers. This ensures that the farmer gets remunerative price for his produce when there is a glut in production. When prices rise too high, this stock can be used to stabilise the prices, thus shielding the poor Indian from the wrath of exorbitant food prices which still forms a large part of his expenditure. Under WTO, the government cannot provide support of more than 10% of the production cost for an agricultural product. But India managed to secure a “peace clause” on public stockholding at the Bali Ministerial Conference in 2013 enabling India to pursue its stockpiling and thus safeguarding its food security. The deal now applies indefinitely until a permanent solution to the problem of public stockholding is agreed on.
If food is essential for us to live, affordable medicines are equally critical. WTO’s TRIPS agreement compelled India to align its Intellectual Property Regime with the western system. The big pharmaceutical companies, often called the Big Pharma, have misused the patent regime to accrue outrageously high profits. Indian companies have been able to develop similar drugs in the fraction of those prices. So, when a poor person in the developing world is able to afford the medicine for his cardiac disease or diabetes, it is probably a generic medicine produced by an Indian company that saves him.
Indian IPR regime puts public health before intellectual property rights. India voiced the concerns of the world’s poor at the WTO so that a government can issue compulsory license for any drug for the sake of public health. A patented triple combination therapy medicine for HIV/AIDS can cost about $10,000 per person per year. The Indian company Cipla can achieve that feet in just $200. India’s advocacy at the WTO hasn’t just helped India but also other poorer countries which India can provide with low cost medicines. The above two cases show how diplomacy can affect our lives in ways we never imagined.
The obscene model of development followed by the West since industrial revolution has put our existence on earth in jeopardy. Climate Change is a result of the accumulated Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. One can call Climate change a particularly “racist” phenomenon in that while the Global North is largely to blame for it, it will affect the Global south the most which until recently had contributed almost nothing to carbon emission as compared to the West.
India’s rationale for the demand to not be constrained by any obligations was put quite poetically by Indira Gandhi at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment in 1972 when she said:
We do not wish to impoverish the environment any further and yet we cannot for a moment forget the grim poverty of the large numbers of our people. Are not poverty and the need the greatest polluters?
In 1992, at the Earth Summit in Rio, India articulated its developmental needs and it was instrumental in modifying the term “Common Responsibilities” to “Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR)” which has been the bedrock of subsequent Climate negotiations. As Indian economy grew, it took greater responsibility of mitigation by making voluntary targets of reducing its emission intensity by 20-25 percent till 2030 compared to 2005 levels. In the lexicon of Navroz K. Dubash, India has moved from being a ‘Growth first stonewaller’, to a ‘Progressive realist’ under the UPA with a dynamic Environmental Minister like Jairam Ramesh and now to ‘Progressive Internationalist’ under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Mr. Modi has made it clear at several occasions that he will be the first to completely switch to renewable if the world helps him with financial support and technology. India’s activism doesn’t mean that its foreign policy is getting disconnected with the concerns of development, it implies that it is striving for a cleaner model of development as a clean environment is itself an essential dimension of development.
At times, economics can help solve the puzzles of politics. India’s north-east, often called the ‘troubled periphery’ has been mired in insurgencies and violent sub-nationalism and suffered widespread poverty and underdevelopment. That is about to change, thanks to India’s Look East policy. In 1991, Former Prime Minister Narasimha Rao announced the policy and put India’s North East at the center of it. With India’s relations with ASEAN and East Asian countries at an all time high, the ‘Look East’ Policy has graduated to ‘Act East’ policy.
The Kaladan Multimodal Transit Transport (KMTT) Project is poised to connect the North East to ASEAN. Greater economic integration of the North-East with the global economy will certainly prove to be a game changer in the government’s efforts towards its development. Another similarly troubled region since independence has been Kashmir. India has been willing for peaceful talks on Kashmir on the condition that Pakistan first stops harbouring terrorists in its territory. Greater Economic integration can increase the costs of such asymmetrical warfare for Pakistan but it has even refused to grant the ‘Most Favoured Nation’ status to India. There has been little success on the ‘Kashmir’ problem but we ought to be optimistic about the power of diplomacy to pull South Asia from the clutches of narrow historical rivalry and consequently from poverty and underdevelopment.
As India grows, its high share of traditional fuels like dung cake and fuel woods use in India will reduce. This will bring with it health and environmental benefits. We can clearly see the change that schemes like Ujjwala have brought in the lives of women who previously used fuels that affected their health. India will have to accelerate its efforts to secure resources from countries across the world. To ease energy deficit in South Asia, TAPI gas pipeline is under-construction that will help India utilize Turkmenistan’s gas reserves. As India’s energy needs grows considerably in next few decades, India has to create similar opportunities elsewhere.
Lastly, not every Indian lives in India. Among the Indian diaspora, Indian labours in Gulf countries are the most impoverished. The unskilled and the low skilled workers endure working conditions that often violate the worker’s rights. Indian Government has cooperated with the Gulf countries on this issue. Its importance has been continuously flagged as a priority for India and it has been emphasised by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on his visits to the Gulf .
World Poverty Clock gives a real time poverty. On their website, an animation shows people running away from a huge number coloured in Red that counts the poor people in the world. As they run away, the number decreases. The nationality of people coming out of poverty is displayed on the screen. Almost every two out of three such persons is an Indian. It is just a simulation but it does give us a practical sense of how India is fighting poverty every second. Deep K. Datta-Ray, the author of ‘The Making of Indian Diplomacy’, in his attempt to understand the indigenous roots of Indian Diplomacy says:
Indian leaders have repeatedly stated that they are not interested in the goal that the West presumes is India’s i.e. to become a great power. This is assumed by the West to be India’s goal because the West seeks this. Instead, Indian leaders constantly reiterate that the point of their diplomacy is to change the context of Indian.
The contribution of Indian Diplomacy in poverty eradication is a well kept secret. Every time I watch the World Poverty Clock, I imagine the animated people to be running away from a kidnapper, some ‘Mogambo’ figure, who has imprisoned them in a land far away. I am sure a diplomat will receive them at the airport.