- India should once again become a consensus-builder, instead of the outlier it has progressively become:
Relevance: mains: G.S paper II: Important International institutions, agencies
India’s singular objective as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in 2021-22 should be to help build a stable and secure external environment. In doing so, India will promote its own people’s prosperity, regional and global security and growth, and a rule-based world order. It could emerge a partner of choice for developing and developed countries alike.
India’s representation in the UNSC has become rarer. It is to re-enter the Council after a gap of 10 years. The previous time, in 2011-12, followed a gap of 20 years. In total, India has been in the UNSC for 14 years, representing roughly a fifth of the time the United Nations (UN) has existed. India must leverage this latest opportunity to project itself as a responsible nation.
Changing state of world
India finds itself in a troubled region between West and East Asia, a region bristling with insurgencies, terrorism, human and narcotics trafficking, and great power rivalries. There has been cataclysmic dislocation in West Asia. The Gulf is in turmoil. Though the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Daesh) has been defeated, Iraq and Syria are not going to be the same as before. Surviving and dispersed Daesh foot soldiers are likely preparing new adventures, many in their countries of origin. The turbulence in West Asia is echoed in North and South Asia, a consequence of the nuclear and missile tests by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Afghanistan’s slow but unmistakable unravelling from the support, sustenance and sanctuary provided in its contiguity to groups such as the Haqqani network, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda. Other problems in Asia include strategic mistrust or misperception, unresolved borders and territorial disputes, the absence of a pan-Asia security architecture, and competition over energy and strategic minerals.
Alongside, the western world is consumed by primordial, almost tribal instincts, turning its back on the universal values it once espoused as western values. Pundits and political scientists, who had spoken of the end of the nation state and the end of history itself, are grappling with the rise of new nationalism.
The benign and supportive international system that followed the Cold War has all but disappeared. At the beginning of this century, the words ‘national interest’ had acquired almost a pejorative connotation. They are now back in currency. Fear, populism, polarisation, and ultra-nationalism have become the basis of politics in many countries. No wonder that five years ago, when Henry Kissinger completed his latest work, World Order, he found the world to be in a greater state of disorder than at any time since the end of World War II.
Even so, the world is in a better place today than when the UN was first established. The record on maintaining international peace and security, one of the prime functions of the UNSC, has been positive, with or without the UN. The world has been distracted from its other shared goals, especially international social and economic cooperation. Although coordination between 193 sovereign member nations will be difficult, it is well worth trying. To this end, the permanent members (P-5) as also other UN members must consider it worth their while to reform the Council.
A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, “World in 2050”, predicts that by 2050, China will be the world’s number one economic power, followed by India. In China’s case, this is subject to its success in avoiding the middle-income trap. And in India’s, to more consistent economic performance than the experience of recent years. That said, one of the challenges of the international system today, and for India in the UNSC, is that this profound impending change is largely unrecognised by the great powers and other countries.
What should India aim to do?
There is no need for India to fritter away diplomatic goodwill in seeking an elusive permanent seat in the UNSC — it will come India’s way more by invitation and less by self-canvassing. India will have to increase its financial contribution, as the apportionment of UN expenses for each of the P-5 countries is significantly larger than that for India. Even Germany and Japan today contribute many times more than India. Although India has been a leading provider of peacekeepers, its assessed contribution to UN peacekeeping operations is minuscule.
At a time when there is a deficit of international leadership on global issues, especially on security, migrant movement, poverty, and climate change, India has an opportunity to promote well-balanced, common solutions.
First, as a member of the UNSC, India must help guide the Council away from the perils of invoking the principles of humanitarian interventionism or ‘Responsibility to Protect’. The world has seen mayhem result from this. And yet, there are regimes in undemocratic and repressive nations where this yardstick will never be applied. Given the fragile and complex international system, which can become even more unpredictable and conflictual, India should work towards a rules-based global order. Sustainable development and promoting peoples’ welfare should become its new drivers.
Second, India should push to ensure that the UNSC Sanctions Committee targets all those individuals and entities warranting sanctions. Multilateral action by the UNSC has not been possible because of narrowly defined national interest. As on May 21, 2019, 260 individuals and 84 entities are subject to UN sanctions, pursuant to Council resolutions 1267, 1989, and 2253. The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control maintains a larger list of individuals and entities subject to U.S. sanctions. The European Union maintains its own sanctions list.
Third, having good relations with all the great powers, India must lead the way by pursuing inclusion, the rule of law, constitutionalism, and rational internationalism. India should once again become a consensus-builder, instead of the outlier it has progressively become. A harmonised response is the sine qua non for dealing with global problems of climate change, disarmament, terrorism, trade, and development. India could take on larger burdens to maintain global public goods and build new regional public goods. For example, India should take the lead in activating the UNSC’s Military Staff Committee, which was never set into motion following the UN’s inception. Without it, the UNSC’s collective security and conflict-resolution roles will continue to remain limited.
Looking at polycentrism
A rules-based international order helps rather than hinders India, and embracing the multilateral ethic is the best way forward. India will be a rich country in the future and will acquire greater military muscle, but its people will remain relatively poor. India is a great nation, but not a great power. Apolarity, unipolarity, a duopoly of powers or contending super-powers — none of these suit India. India has a strong motive to embrace polycentrism, which is anathema to hegemonic powers intent on carving out their exclusive spheres of influence.
Finally, India cannot stride the global stage with confidence in the absence of stable relations with its neighbours. Besides whatever else is done within the UN and the UNSC, India must lift its game in South Asia and its larger neighbourhood. Exclusive reliance on India’s brilliant team of officers at its New York mission is not going to be enough.
(Source: The Hindu)
- A play based and non-didactic approach to primary education:
Relevance: mains: G.S paper II: Education
Puducherry has systematically gone about starting pre-primary classes in all its government primary schools. Anyone you ask there, they point to this levelling of the playing field as a key reason for enrolment increases in these schools, and the drop on that metric in private schools. Many teachers in Puducherry, on their own initiative, have expanded the “play-based” and “non-didactic” pedagogical approach of pre-primary classes to primary classes. Both these matters, on which action is visible in Puducherry, pre-empts the draft National Education Policy 2019 (NEP).
Gomathy was teaching class 3 at the Savarirayalu Government Primary School in Puducherry. The students were involved in addition of 3- and 4-digit numbers, working in five groups of five students each. Each group had some locally made (or very low-cost) pedagogical aids to help with the exercise. Observation made it clear that each group had a mix of students based on their comfort with the exercise. Gomathy ensured that students who were at ease with the problems did not dominate the proceedings and helped others who were struggling.
Energy was flowing in the class, with kids racing to their teacher for more problem sheets after finishing one. Gomathy explained how the school’s teachers had collectively decided to adopt a “cohort-teacher” approach, meaning the same teacher teaches a cohort of students all subjects as they progress from class to class, till they move out from primary school. This system is very useful in the early classes, when the basis of learning is primarily the relationship of trust and care between students and teachers. Learning from experience, they had tweaked this system to ensure that no cohort of students is put at a disadvantage by the cohort-teacher’s limitations.
Such vibrant, adequately resourced classrooms, with engaged teachers who have an empathetic relationship with their students, are an integral part of the NEP’s vision. So is the importance of empowerment of schools to take key educational decisions. It also highlights the centrality of the role of teachers, and the importance of “professional learning communities” of teachers.
Gomathy surprised me when she told me that she had translated Chapter 14 (National Research Foundation) of the NEP into Tamil. Her initiative and competence are not limited to school classrooms. She was as a part of a collective civil society exercise to translate the entire 484 pages of the NEP to Tamil. Later in the evening at a consultation meeting on the NEP, I saw the result of this remarkable effort—neatly printed Tamil versions of the Policy. About 40 people were involved in this effort, most of them government school teachers.
Over the course of the next three days, I was in three such meetings across the country, attended mostly by teachers and activists for public education. These were lively discussions. There were several clarifications, many constructive suggestions, a few disagreements, and a widespread acknowledgement of the much-needed transformations of Indian education that the NEP lays out. With hundreds of such points of feedback, the NEP in its final form will surely be significantly improved.
In sharp contrast to such constructive engagement is the reaction of some educationists. Many have read non-existent sections and intentions into the draft. As an example, many have seen the horrors of commercialization and privatization writ in the NEP, despite the painstaking effort of the committee to underline the importance of public education. Others are exhibiting narcissism of small differences. Both sets are being irresponsible to the very causes that they have fought for most of their lives. Because most of these causes, fought and advocated by almost everyone committed to a vibrant public education system, including these educationists, are now integral to the NEP.
Such educationists also seem to be losing sight of the fundamental nature of public policymaking—always an exercise in negotiation and balance between contending perspectives. Education in our country is a tricky battlefield. Any policy initiative that manages to stick to basic principles and succeeds in avoiding egregious mistakes or surrendering to fringe interests is definitely a success. The Kasturirangan committee has done more; while avoiding such mistakes with remarkable diligence, it has actually created a blueprint for what most in education have for decades wished for.
The final word goes to one of the wisest and most competent of public administrators in the country, who wryly commented at the end of a consultation meeting with a large group of powerful people in education, “If so many people with deep vested interests are dead against the NEP, it must be absolutely the right thing to do; let’s implement it immediately.”
Until our public intellectuals of whatever hue, liberal, left, centrist or right leaning, are more thoughtful about the reality of policymaking, are alive to the political moment, and are intellectually non-partisan, policymakers will continue to be very suspicious of experts. And that is not good for society in the long run.
(Source: Livemint)
- The Bankruptcy code awaits further clarity:
Relevance: Mains: G.S paper III: Indian Economy: banking
The Union cabinet’s approval of amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to enhance its efficacy could bring relief to banks, foreign investors and others worried about the impact that quasi-judicial interpretations of the code’s grey areas might have on the country’s credit systems. Among the expected tweaks is a clarification on the hierarchy of creditors to be repaid once the insolvency of a company gone bust is resolved. Lenders had found their mood darkenin response to a recent National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) ruling in the bankruptcy case of Essar Steel. The tribunal, while approving Arcelor Mittal’s bid to take over the company for ₹42,000 crore, had ordered that all its creditors be returned 60.7% of their respective outstanding claims, irrespective of whether the money they were owed was “secured” or not. That all creditors be treated on par for debt recovery might appear fair at first glance, but if such an “equal haircut” principle were to set a precedent for future cases, it would distort a credit market that operates on the logic of loan deals that vary both by interest charges levied and the contractual consequences of a default.
The rights of secured creditors are always held superior to those of unsecured ones. This is because they lend at lower rates in return for a claim on the debtor’s assets as collateral. So, in Essar Steel’s case, the state lenders left unpaid had the first right among creditors to the rescue funds offered by its buyer. Other non-employees owed money, such as operational creditors, had to come next in line. That’s how the repayment order is stacked globally. Denying banks this right could make them less willing to lend money at low interest rates. If they aren’t going to get any repayment priority, then they might as well charge more for the extra risk they bear. This could doom the very concept of collateral, and end up pushing up the borrowing costs of companies in general. Also, since the tribunal’s order was for an insolvency resolution, banks may resist pursuing debt recovery under the IBC, preferring to explore other options before pushing that button. This would work against the basic idea of the code as a reform, which was to ensure that a failed business does not stay stuck for years, and its assets and usable resources are swiftly redeployed.
Foreign investors in India’s still-nascent market for impaired debt had also been stunned by the tribunal’s order. A purchaser of stressed loans would pick up these assets at bargain prices only if they bear all the usual rights that ought to come with it. But if their repayment priority is withdrawn, then the risk-return ratio would weaken significantly, leaving such debt unattractive. For India, which is trying to deepen its debt markets and find buyers for stressed assets, a fundamental shift in the contours of a collateral-backed loan would be bad news. So it’s not just lenders, but everyone concerned about credit flows who would be relieved if the government acts to protect the commercial terms on which loans are usually advanced. Treating all creditors equitably does not mean that all variations in debtor obligations are overlooked. Creditors in the same category should have equal rights, while those in varied categories should have rights commensurate to the risk they take. We need respect for legitimate deals that are struck between borrowers and lenders.
(Source: Livemint)
- India could take a leaf out of Europe’s book instead of calling for a blanket ban on cyptocurrencies
- Relevance: mains: G.S paper III:
The Banning of Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2019 has proposed stringent penalties, including 10 years of imprisonment, for holding, selling or dealing in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. Given the high chances of cryptocurrencies being misused in money laundering, various government bodies such as IT, CBDT, and the customs departments have endorsed this endeavour.
While it is important to put mechanisms in place to deter bad actors, a blanket ban on all forms of cryptocurrency transactions will result in India missing out on what may become one of the biggest technology revolutions since the Internet.
The potential of blockchain
While an oversimplification, blockchain can be described as a way for people to share extra space and computational power in their computers to create a global supercomputer that is accessible for everyone. Every computer connected to a blockchain network helps validate and record transactions. People who connect their computers to a network are known as validators and receive transaction fees in the form of tokens.
Many technologists believe that the blockchain industry is poised for an explosion similar to what happened to the smartphone industry. None of us could have imagined services such as Google Maps or Uber which came to fruition due to the new mobile platform. Start-ups have already built thousands of apps on blockchain platforms like Ethereum. However, these apps aren’t easily available to non-tech savvy consumers through an app store, and hence their usage remains low. They also face technical problems including scalability and slowing down of the network when many people use these apps simultaneously. New companies such as Algorand and CasperLabs are investing millions in research and development and are close to solving these issues.
Blockchain technology has the potential to create new industries and transform existing ones in ways we cannot imagine. For instance, it has the capacity to facilitate nano-payments proportionate to an individual’s contribution and value creation in the Internet, making it an ideal wealth redistribution tool for our digital age.
Even big technology companies have started to take blockchain applications seriously. Facebook, for instance, recently announced its own cryptocurrency to facilitate payments globally with minimal fees and no dependency on a central bank. Venture capitalists invested $2.4 billion in blockchain and cryptocurrency start-ups in 2018. So far, 2019 is poised to exceed this benchmark.
None of the above is possible without the underlying tokens that facilitate transactions in a blockchain network. A law to ban holding or transacting in cryptocurrency would not only prevent Indians from reaping economic benefits by participating in blockchain networks as validators and earning transaction fees, but also stifle any innovation related to this disruptive emerging technology.
The European example
The European Parliament and European Council are working on an anti-money laundering directive, known as AMLD5. The deadline for its implementation is January 2020. All crypto exchanges and wallet custodians operating in Europe will have to implement strict know-your-customer (KYC) on-boarding procedures and need to register with local authorities. They will also be required to report suspicious activities to relevant bodies. This will not fully solve the problem since it is not always possible for the exchange to know a beneficiary’s details.
The EU Commission is aware and has been mandated to present further set of amendment proposals regarding self-declaration by virtual currency owners, the maintenance of central databases registering users’ identities and wallet addresses, and norms while using virtual currencies as payment or investment means by 2022. This is a more reasonable approach, and the Indian government could follow suit.