In June 2020, PLA troops “surprised” India in the Ladakh sector of the contested LoAC (line of actual control) where the Indian Army lost 20 lives, including that of Colonel Santosh Babu in the Galwan valley.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]
In a welcome move, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on June 12 approved a revised policy on how India compiles, archives and disseminates its war documents and related history. As per the new policy, once an operation/war is completed, the first cut of history is to be prepared and disseminated for internal circulation within five years. Whether this first draft of history is to be placed in the public domain or not, will be determined on a case by case basis, depending on the sensitivity of the operation/war. Predictably, the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report relating to the 1962 war with China, which is still under wraps, will not be part of the new policy. Apparently, another committee will take a view on previous wars.
Unveiling this new policy on the eve of the first anniversary of the Galwan “scuffle” on June 15 has complex symbolism about India’s strategic culture and the opacity cum ostrich-act that envelops its China policy in particular. From all accounts, with Prime Minister at the helm, India’s bilateral relationship with China seemed more than buoyant and the image-rich Modi-Xi summitry that moved from Ahmedabad to Wuhan to Mamallapuram conveyed a sense of shared bonhomie. However, this optimism was clearly misplaced and the tea leaves were not read astutely.
In June 2020, PLA troops “surprised” India in the Ladakh sector of the contested LoAC where the Indian Army lost 20 lives, including that of Colonel Santosh Babu in the Galwan valley. The PLA also lost their troops, though the official number admitted is only four personnel.
Galwan is a major punctuation in the troubled bilateral relationship and India has come off second best in the Ladakh “scuffle”. Delhi has to contend with an altered LoAC and a Beijing that has decided to violate the 1993 Jiang Zemin-Narasimha Rao agreement. Carefully shaped narratives about the military defending national sovereignty and territorial integrity are crucial for any political leadership — authoritarian or democratic — and Galwan has special salience for both China and India.
While India has interpreted Galwan as a case of Chinese perfidy and places the onus on Beijing to restore the status quo, the view from China is very different. In the run up to the July 1 centenary of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), the PLA action against India is being projected as a case of guarding the border and defending the motherland.
A Chinese flag “once raised on Pangong Lake” is being taken by elite PLA troops from units posted along the LoAC to educational institutions to stoke pride in military and muscular nationalism, wherein the military reiterates its allegiance to the party as represented by President Xi Jinping. The CCP in turn has accorded unto itself the sacred duty of defending the territoriality of the motherland and Galwan is being accordingly consecrated.
India’s narrative about Galwan remains opaque and there has been no detailed official statement from the Ministry of Defence on the current tactical situation in Ladakh. PM Modi’s statement soon after the Galwan incident (June 20, 2020) that, “No one entered Indian territory nor were Indian posts taken” has set the obfuscation template about transgressions by the PLA.
Recently in May this year, the Army Chief General M M Naravane noted in an interview: “There has been no transgression of any kind and the process of talks is continuing.” If indeed there has been no “transgression” then what is the meaning of insisting on a return to the pre-Galwan status quo?
From a policy perspective and in keeping with the latest directive about military operations and narratives, the Galwan anniversary should encourage the government to set up an independent panel of experts to review the institutional lapses that led to an altered LoAC in the Ladakh sector.
Concurrently, Delhi will need to objectively review and anticipate what the PLA may embark upon next. Beijing has staked an expansive territorial claim that includes Arunachal Pradesh and the completion of the Lhasa-Nyingchi high-speed railway network by end June has multiple tactical and strategic implications. This railway line would terminate at a point that is less than 15 kilometres from the LoAC north of the Tuting sector in Arunachal Pradesh.
Galwan could have a silver lining if it encourages Delhi to review its China narrative in an objective and unvarnished manner and craft affordable and effective long-term strategic/security policies that are not clouded by political compulsions.
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)