The geo-political ascendancy of India achieved a new milestone this month when it was granted the membership of missile technology control regime (MTCR). This was considered as a major achievement of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s foreign policy.
The membership allows India to buy or sell advanced missile technology and military know-how from a third-party, in accordance with the guidelines of membership.
However, many analysts viewed the MTCR membership of India as a stepping stone to get into the elite Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which was ironically founded after the first nuclear test conducted by India in 1974. The NSG is poised to meet in Seoul for the 23-24 June plenary and India’s membership will be an important issue to be discussed.
The United States (US) is strongly supporting India’s NSG membership and has been quite vociferous about it, with US Secretary of State John Kerry writing letter to support India’s candidature. Also, in his recently concluded five-nation visit, Prime Minister Modi was able to build a consensus in India’s favour and garner support from Mexico, Japan and Switzerland.
The countries which are still opposing India’s membership are, New Zealand, Ireland, Turkey, South Africa, Austria and China. China, however, has softened its stand and said: “the door is open” for the admission of non-NPT members “but the members of the NSG should stay focused on whether the criteria should be changed.”
The chief contention among the opposing countries is India’s refusal to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). India maintains that military use of nuclear technology is a matter of its national security and thus denies any negotiation on the topic. Many argue that allowing India would set a precedent for other non-NPT countries such as Pakistan, and weaken the stringent NSG eligibility criteria.
However, many diplomats attribute the opposition of China to its more congenial relationship with Pakistan.
The US is trying to negate the growing influence of China in South-East Asia and aims to develop India as an ally in the developing world.
Several new India-US agreements such as Logistics Exchange Agreement, which provides provision of sharing military facilities between the two nations are in negotiation and may harm the geo-strategic interest of China as it threatens Beijing hegemony in South-East Asia.
This increasing bilateral ties between India and the US is a cause for concern for China and thus it was refusing to recognise India in NSG and lobbying for Pakistan.
The trade benefits associated with NSG is also an important factor in China’s resistance to India’s membership as it is sceptic of granting New Delhi the same benefits as it enjoys in international nuclear market.
India has sizeable deposit of uranium and especially thorium, which can be traded in international market and thus have huge trade potential.
New Delhi argues that it was applying for membership based ‘on merit’ and not ‘on guidelines’ and asserts that it is not required to be a NPT-signed country to be a member of NSG.
At a Press Conference, External Affairs Ministry spokesman Vikas Swarup argued that France was a member of NSG while it was not a NPT nation and thus, China’s objection on India being a non-NPT nation is ambiguous.
But it is evident that the moves are in play and finer diplomacy is needed to advance respective national interest (China, India and the US), before any satisfactory conclusion could be reached.
However, many officials and diplomats argue that China should support India’s NSG application. India already has trade exemption which was granted in 2008 under George Bush government and allows India to engage in civil nuclear commerce. It also led to exchange of novel nuclear technologies between US and India.
China supported India in this endeavour albeit on the insistence of the then US president but it is strategically important that China does the same in Seoul too. China is widely viewed as a proliferator of nuclear technology as it has helped states such as North Korea and Pakistan in the past to gain access to nuclear technology for military purpose.
Supporting India would set a positive precedent for China for a membership of MTCR to which India was recently granted membership and China is not a member.
India and China have similar interest and voting pattern on pertinent economic policies such as climate funding and World Trade Organisation, and this is in accordance with Prime Minister Modi’s foreign policy, which is more focused on trade opportunities rather than geo-political associations.
This can present a unique opportunity for China to increase its trade commitments with India. Also, the US Congress recently rejected an amendment to grant India a special status as global strategic and defence partner, which exhibit a lack of dimension in India-US strategic cooperation and gives China a ‘wiggle-room’ to extend cooperation with India especially in trade and commerce.
Given the geographical location of India and China and a shared past, it is evident that they will be rivals but the recent allocation of approximately $300 million to Pakistan by the US to ‘fight terror’ implies that Pakistan is still a close ally of the US and it would be mutually beneficial for India and China to extend cooperation.
The recent missile and nuclear development of North Korea also poses a threat to the national security of China and thus is in need of new allies.
China is aware of the threat North Korea poses and thus backed the increase in United Nation sanctions after Pyongyang‘s missile test.
The common threat is in the form of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and associated terrorism, making it more important for India and China to have some level of cooperation as both the countries are a part of ‘grand’ caliphate of ISIS. Thus, the change in global politics and economics have led to the evolution of many new factors which China need to contemplate before it decided to throw a wrench in India’s effort to gain NSG membership.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)