KASARAGOD CONSENSUS ON MULTILATERALISM

The International Seminar on ‘India and International Organizations: Towards Multilateralism’ organized by the Department of International Relations of the Central University of Kerala (20-22 March, 2013) was a timely initiative which led to a meeting of minds between academics and practitioners on International Organizations.

Although dramatic changes in the world, including globalization, have had their impact on multilateralism, leading to the emergence of multiple organizations and groupings, the centrality of the United Nations should be maintained and its principles and purposes must be upheld.

India should continue to contribute to the setting of standards in various areas of activities of member states and serving the common good of humanity. Our active participation not only in debates, but also in the peace operations of the UN should be dictated by our obligations as a responsible member state.

Reform of the UN, particularly an expansion of the Security Council is imperative to reflect the reality of global power today and to enhance its credibility and moral authority. India’s case for permanent membership has been well established and it must be pursued vigorously, but it must be recognized that, as of today, no formula, which can command the required support for change, exists. The change being sought is revolutionary and must bide its time.

The fact that the academic studies in the field of international organizations are integral to the state-centric study of international relations has a bearing on the theoretical understanding of multilateralism.

India has a commendable record in peacekeeping operations and should continue its participation as a global public good and a contribution to international peace and security. We should also maintain the guiding principles of peacekeeping such as host state consent, impartiality and minimum use of force.

In the context of broader acceptance of the concept of elimination of nuclear weapons, the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan of 1988 should be pursued in the appropriate disarmament forums.

India has played a significant role in protecting and promoting human rights worldwide, but its role in the area must be studied and documented. It will demonstrate that respect for human rights is one of the fundamentals of our foreign policy.

The context and substance of nonalignment have changed but as an instrument of strategic autonomy it has considerable significance. NAM provides a global forum, the second largest after the UN to its member states to communicate its arguments. NAM has the potential to emerge as a likely precursor of a global parliament.

Terrorism is unacceptable as a means of achieving the objectives, however genuine and justified those may be.  International rules and mechanisms must be strengthened for multilateral co-operation to combat this global menace.

Energy security is a crucial issue for all countries today. A system of global energy governance involving international collective action, undertaken to mange and distribute energy resource and provide services offers a meaningful and useful framework for addressing energy related challenges.

The adoption by the UN and its agencies of the concept of a gender mainstreaming perspective, which aims to make gender an aspect of development to varying degrees and with varying success, is a welcome step.

The existing global structure of space technology should be revamped in such a way that it should bridge the gap between the developed and the developing nations.

The climate change regimes negotiated at the global level should address the development needs of the developing nations.

Efforts should be made to eliminate the democracy deficit in the international organizations, ensuring the effective participation of developing countries.

 As we are witnessing a proliferation of ‘lex specialis’ regimes, the principles of positive discrimination should be given legal sanctity in them.

The existing global economic architecture should address the needs of the developing nations such as poverty, unemployment and inflation in the light of the global financial crisis.

The special and differential principles contained in WTO should be made mandatory to strengthen the principles of positive discrimination and protect the interest of weaker states, which constitute 2/3 of nation states.

The existing gap between the academic community and the practitioners of multilateral diplomacy must be reduced by increased interaction between them. The academic studies should provide the necessary inputs for diplomatic negotiations. In turn, the lessons of diplomatic experiences should be shared with the academic fraternity to enrich their ability for introspection and analysis. 

                                  

India and UN Reform

(Paper presented by Former Ambassador T.P.Sreenivasan at the International Conference on the UN at the Central University Kasargod. March 20, 2013.)

By T.P.Sreenivasan

India’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council with the power of the veto is a distant dream even 33 years after we initiated a move in the General Assembly to expand the Council. Although the need for reform has been established and India’s case has been strengthened, there is a multiplicity of formulas, ranging from maintaining the status quo to a massive expansion by adding 6 permanent members and 6 non-permanent members. As of today, there is no formula, which can command 128 votes, including the votes of the five permanent members, the minimum requirement for an amendment to the UN Charter.

The UN reform we are seeking, particularly the expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council, is nothing short of a revolution. We are challenging the very foundation of an institution, born out of a world war, the winners of which gave themselves the responsibility of maintaining world peace and security by assuming extraordinary powers. The UN Charter, which was crafted by them, has been embraced voluntarily by 193 nations. That there has not been a world war since and that the UN has served, as a stabilizing factor in the world is the strongest argument for continuing the status quo. But the contrary argument is stronger, because the global equations have changed so much in the last 68 years that it is imperative that the UN must reflect those changes to maintain its representative character and moral strength. The struggle is on between those who wish to perpetuate their privileged positions and the forces of change that cannot but win. But no one can predict the time and nature of revolutions. They have their own logic and time.

The question today is not whether change is needed, but whether the provisions of the very Charter that established the institution can bring about a real change. If history is any guide, major changes take place when the time is ripe, in unexpected ways, regardless of the strength of those who seek change and those who resist. The provisions of the law that seek to protect the establishment will be thrown to the winds and the old system will yield place to the new. A Malayalam poet declared many years ago: “Change your out dated laws, if not, they will change you yourselves.” We have many examples in history to show that those who have conceded changes have lasted longer than those who have resisted the forces of change.

India was among those who lit the first spark of inevitable change, back in 1979, at the height of the cold war, when an item entitled “Equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council” was inscribed on the agenda of the General Assembly. The demand was to add a few more non-permanent members, on the simple logic that the ratio between the strength of the General Assembly and that of the Security Council should be maintained. The exponential increase in the membership of the UN should be reflected in the size of the Security Council. This principle was, in fact, followed in 1965 when the number of non-permanent members was raised from 6 to 10.

The reaction from the permanent members was instant and shocking. In an unprecedented show of solidarity, they opposed the move tooth and nail. They argued that any expansion of the Security Council would undermine its efficiency, integrity and credibility and ensured that the agenda item was postponed year after year, with a nominal and sterile debate. The idea remained alive, but no action was taken till the end of the cold war.

The game changed in the early nineties, when the idea of adding new permanent members was brought up by Brazil and we initiated the exercise of ascertaining the views of the members and setting up a mechanism to study the proposals and to reach consensus. The permanent members led by the US offered a “quick fix” after initial hesitation and proposed the addition of Japan and Germany as permanent members on the ground of their being the highest contributors to the UN budget after the US and a marginal increase in the non-permanent membership. If India had not stopped the “quick fix” and insisted on comprehensive reform with the support of the nonaligned group, the door for expansion would have been closed after inducting Japan and Germany at that time. We demolished the payment argument by stating that permanent membership should not be up for sale. If I may be permitted to quote from my own speech at the Working Group in February 1995, “Contribution to the UN should not be measured in terms of money. We do not agree with the view expressed by a delegation that permanent membership is a privilege that can be purchased. Financial contributions are determined on the basis of “capacity to pay” and those who pay their assessments, however small, are no whit less qualified for privilege than the major contributors.”

As a lethargic debate went on in the Working Group for years, national positions evolved and loyalties changed, but it became clear that the expansion of the Security Council could not be easily accomplished. The formation of an interest group called the “Coffee Club” and later “Uniting for Consensus” which opposed any expansion of the permanent membership made the situation more chaotic. We ourselves advanced our position from seeking to establish criteria, such as population, seminal contribution to the UN, participation in peacekeeping operations etc to staking a claim and began campaigning bilaterally in capitals. Over the years, our claim became strong and it became universally recognized that if a single developing country were to become a permanent member, that would be India. One adverse consequence of the debate, however, was that the discussions highlighted that a vast majority of member states had not served even once on the Security Council, while countries like India, Japan, Pakistan and Egypt had served on the Council several times. This led to our long absence from the Council from 1993 to 2010 after having been elected as a non-permanent member 7 times in the earlier period.

Efforts made outside the Working Group were also fruitless. After the deliberations of a High Level Group, Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed two Plans; Plan A, proposing creation of 6 permanent and 3 non-permanent seats and Plan B, proposing 8 new seats for 4 years subject to renewal and 1 non-permanent seat. The Plan B had greater acceptability in the Group and it was at the insistence of Indian member of the Group that Plan A was included. Another exercise undertaken by India, Brazil, Germany and Japan (G-4) to get the General Assembly to adopt a resolution on expansion failed to take off because of differences with the African Group. It, however, resulted in the G-4 conceding for the first time that they would not insist on the veto at least for 15 years. The General Assembly recently entered intergovernmental negotiations to suggest a “timeline perspective” to agree on reform in two stages on the basis of a draft text, but no progress has been reported as yet. A move was initiated by the G-4 to introduce a resolution to decide that both permanent and non-permanent membership will be expanded, but it did not command majority support and was abandoned.

The only silver lining in our quest for a permanent seat on the Security Council is that the need for expansion has been recognized by the entire membership and that there is also recognition that if the permanent membership is ever expanded, India will be the first developing country to find a place in it. For the rest, there are almost as many views as there are members of the UN about the size, composition and rights and responsibilities of the members of the Security Council.

The framers of the UN Charter did not intend that it should be amended easily. But that has not prevented the UN from transforming itself to deal with new issues and new circumstances. Today’s preoccupations of the UN like peacekeeping, human rights, environment, climate change etc were not anticipated in the Charter. The flexibility and resilience of the Charter have been tested again and again and nothing in the Charter has prevented the UN from taking on new responsibilities and obligations. Charter amendments have not been initiated even to remove anachronisms like the enemy countries clause and the name of one of the permanent members. The most crucial article of the Charter on the veto itself has been changed in practice as abstention by a permanent member is considered a concurring vote. The proposals for reform like the working methods of the Council introduced in the Working Group from time to time are mere diversionary tactics as these can be adopted without any amendment to the Charter. But when it comes to an expansion of the Security Council, the only way is to bring a Charter amendment. This explains why the only amendment of the Charter was made in 1965 to raise the number of non-permanent members from 6 to 10 when the strength of the General Assembly increased. The different groups of countries and entrenched interests are in no mood to repeat the exercise, particularly if the permanent membership should be touched.

The permanent members, for instance, consider that they only stand to lose by adding new permanent members with veto. They have made it clear that there is no question of veto being extended to the new permanent members, even though some of them tactically accept the African demand for veto. Even the UK, France and Russia, who have extended support to India and others, have not taken any action to bring about changes. One thing that France and the UK dread is the suggestion that the EU should have only one representative, while they already have two inside and another at the door. They are not willing to float a formula for expansion even to set the ball rolling. The same is the case with many others, who have pledged support to India and other candidates. In many cases, such support is an easy gesture to win goodwill.

A major development in February this year was the emergence of a draft resolution from the Caribbean Community, which is nothing but a wish list of the aspirants to permanent membership as well as of those who seek an expansion of the non-permanent membership. The draft envisages a Security Council consisting of 11 permanent members with veto and 16 non-permanent members. The additional seats will give two permanent seats to Africa, two permanent seats to Asia, one permanent seat to Europe and one permanent seat to Latin America. The G-4 has reason for joy about this formula as it meets its own demand. Africa’s demand for two permanent seats has also been met. But the permanent members, the Coffee Club and several countries, which have championed the abolition of the veto will vigorously oppose the Caricom draft. But if it can secure more than 128 votes in the General Assembly, the pressure will increase on the permanent members to at least offer an alternative formula and enter into serious negotiations in a new forum as the present Intergovernmental Negotiations have reached a dead end. But as it has happened in the past, the permanent five will try, by hook or by crook, to stave off a vote on the Caricom draft in the General Assembly.

The US, which had supported Japan and Germany in the early nineties, now favours “two or so” new permanent members, including Japan and “2 or 3” non-permanent members making an addition of only 5 more to the Security Council. Such a formula is a non-starter. The support extended to India by President Obama during his visit to India is in the form of a wish without a commitment to bring it about. His words were: “In the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.” Though this is a significant departure from the previous US position, it is not enough for the US to extend support to India; it should shape a formula, which is acceptable to the membership. Its reservation over Germany and Brazil will itself deprive it of being decisive on the issue of expansion.

We did not need Wikileaks to find the reasons for the reluctance of the US to bring about expansion of the Council. But we now have it in black and white what we knew from the beginning. “We believe expansion of the Council along the lines of the models currently discussed will dilute US influence in the body…..On most important issues of the day—Sanctions, Human Rights, Middle East etc---Brazil, India and most African states are currently far less sympathetic to our views than our European allies”, said the US Ambassador in a cable in December 2007. The US delegation at the UN seems to have only a watching brief till intervention becomes necessary to prevent an expansion that will not serve US interests. A special report of the Council on Foreign Relations which has urged the President to do so makes the expansion contingent on demonstration of the qualifications of permanent membership. The position of the aspirants on non-proliferation, climate change and human rights will be subject to scrutiny. The Caricom draft will electrify the US delegation into action against it as it flies in the face of the US position.

China is opposed explicitly to Japan and implicitly to India, though it pays lip service to developing countries’ representation on the Council. Its position could be decisive as the permanent members will coordinate their positions before any advance is made. France, UK and Russia are not likely to support the draft, despite their declared support for a modest expansion, including recognition of India’s credentials for permanent membership.

It is clear that it will be difficult to accomplish the fundamental change we are seeking by way of the procedure laid down for change. Like it happened in the case of the formation of G-20 when G-8 could not resolve the unprecedented economic crisis, a situation may arise when the P-5 find it difficult to maintain international peace and security without additional permanent members and thus force their hands to accept change. Such an ominous future was predicted by the President of the General Assembly, when he said on May 16, 2011, “Unless we find the determination to advance on the issue, the UN will lose its credibility. Our organization will be marginalized and important issues will be discussed in other forums and groupings, which are perceived to be more efficient and more representative of the new realities of the day.” Such a situation may arise sooner than later and that gives us reason for hope.

India and the other aspirants for permanent membership, in the meantime, must maintain pressure for expansion. But to give the impression that permanent membership is the holy grail of Indian foreign policy does not enhance our prestige. Legend has it that India spurned an offer to take over China’s permanent seat on the Security Council, saying that we would win it in our own right one day. That position has won us more glory than what we have gained by our constant knocking at all doors. Making support for our permanent membership the litmus test of bilateral relations is untenable. We should appear more confident and secure even as we demand our rightful place in keeping with our status as the largest democracy with a dynamic, fast growing economy, an impressive record in UN peacekeeping, ability to protect the global commons and to combat transnational terrorism and strong record against proliferation.

Without appearing to spurn the proverbial “sour grapes”, we should acknowledge that that permanent membership without veto is not such an attractive trophy that we should expend unlimited resources and energy on it. As it happened during our recent term as a non-permanent member, India will be called upon to take sides on every issue in the world, sometimes losing friends in the process, as we are fiercely independent and do not play second fiddle to anyone. The lack of the veto may make us vulnerable as a result, if issues of crucial importance to us come up in the Council. India has been playing a significant role even without being on the Security Council for many years. A posture of our willingness to serve when required to do so rather than being desperate about securing a seat here and now may be a good strategy to adopt. The UN needs reform not to make one country or the other happy, but to make itself more relevant, credible and effective in the world and it will be ready for a revolution sooner rather than later.

Thank you.

Maldives: The Limits of Power

By T.P.Sreenivasan

The day the former President Nasheed left the Indian High Commission in Male, India heaved a sigh of relief that India had opened a window of opportunity in Maldives for a peaceful resolution of the political crisis there and to restore the rule of law and democracy. It was a narrow window, it was noted, which could be closed very soon. And it did, when Nasheed was arrested again, prompting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to express concern over the “critical political instability” in Maldives.  The mighty regional power finds itself powerless to change the course of events in Maldives and, by a conspiracy of circumstances, the victory of Nasheed in the next election has become the litmus test of India’s diplomatic success in the Indian Ocean at a time when the area is considered pivotal to global peace and security.

Soon after an Indian delegation returned after resolving the Nasheed stand off and declaring that Nasheed was now free to return to normal personal and political life, the spokesman of the Acting President ridiculed Nasheed’s stay in the Indian High Commission as “the longest meeting in history”. He was referring to the Indian claim that Nasheed had gone eleven days ago to the High Commission for a meeting. The clear message was that the Government had given no guarantee for Nasheed’s safety to India and that the Indian role was not legitimate. This was made even more explicit when Nasheed was arrested, perhaps to assert Maldives’ sovereignty.

All the facts leading to the state of India’s power in the least powerful of its neighbours are not known, but the general impression is that India was not adept enough to see the writing on the wall ever since Nasheed was elected and that it closed its eyes shut when the old strongman Gayoom began flexing his muscles. The coconut wireless of the islands must have been abuzz with speculation about Gayoom’s moves long before the army and police closed in on Nasheed and made him voluntarily resign the Presidency. Male must be a place, where everyone knows everyone else and state secrets must be the market folklore.

Perhaps, we knew precisely the unfolding events and chose not to intervene, partly because we were nostalgic about the days when Gayoom was in the Presidential palace and all was well with the world. We were obviously unaware of the schooling Gayoom received from two of our other neighbours in the art of containing India and thwarting Indian “hegemony” in the Indian Ocean. Ironically, the struggle between Acting President Waheed and former President Nasheed has assumed the flavor of a proxy conflict between China and India. Waheed portrays Nasheed as someone seeking Indian intervention, while Nasheed accuses the former of favouring proximity to China. Nasheed has publicly sought a more “aggressive posture”, while Waheed asserts that since Maldives is a small state, it should not receive “small justice”.

The preset Indian strategy appears to be to play the peacemaker between Nasheed and Waheed, so that free and fair elections are held in September, with the participation of Nasheed, notwithstanding the “Judge Abdullah Abduction Case”, which threatens to disqualify Nasheed. Waheed maintains that he is pledged to hold such elections, but claims that he has no control over the judicial process. In the present scenario, the past glory India-Maldives relations can be restored if Nasheed wins. We do not seem to be contemplating any other way to wield our legitimate influence in our own backyard. Our power to help and harm does not seem to impress the powers that be in Maldives.

A spokesman of the Waheed Government told me on television that Nasheed had lost his support among the people long before he “voluntarily stepped down”. He asserted that there was no way Nasheed would win the September elections, even though Waheed did not have a single seat in the Parliament at this time. Asked about the increasing influence of China, he said that, as a developing country, Maldives received the much-needed assistance from China. He did not acknowledge the assistance that India had provided for many years. On links with India, he mentioned only the “nonaligned link”, which Maldives had with more than a hundred countries. He said that the GMR contract was one-sided and that its cancellation had helped Maldives earn more foreign exchange. He may have been uninformed or engaging in disinformation, but the mindset of the regime was clearly evident. It feels that China will make up for the loss of Indian support and that it has nothing to lose by defying India by denying its role, cancelling its airport project and forgetting that the ocean around it carries the name of a great and reliable nation.

The present situation reveals the limits of power of states in different situations. Unless our neighbours have a stake in our progress and success, they will challenge our role in various ways and power will become irrelevant. No one tries to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. In the long term, India must leverage other power centres in Maldives to retain its influence, even if the Nasheed gamble fails. Whether it can do this before the September elections and play a decisive role in restoring constitutional democracy is a moot point. The expression of concern by the Prime Minister over the critical political instability in Maldives is, one hopes, the first step in the right direction. Having missed the opportunity to use the wide open doors in Maldives, let us now use the narrow opening in the window.  

Rediff.com 

Higher Education 2.0 A Blueprint for Kerala.

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Two laments that we hear about higher education in Kerala are that it has remained static and that our Universities and Colleges do not figure in the lists of excellent institutions nationally or internationally. The first is contrary to facts and the second arises out of inadequate appreciation of the relevance, rationale and methodology of drawing up the lists by national and international entities.

In the forty-five years that I have been away from the education scene in Kerala, higher education has made rapid strides, in terms of establishment of new institutions in areas of special interest, new courses to teach emerging technologies and new methods of teaching. To cite just one instance, the Masters Degree course in English Literature offered in the Universities in Kerala today are very different from the course I did in the sixties. Gone are the days when considerable space was given for Old English and Chaucer. Today, Communicative English, Diaspora Literature and Dalit Literature are part of the curriculum.

As for the lists of world-class universities and others, it is true that such lists recognize the exceptional quality of education available around the world. In our quest for excellence, the institutions recognized become models to emulate. But the criteria used in identifying these institutions are such that they are beyond the reach of the majority of institutions, particularly in Kerala. The number of Nobel Prizes won, patents registered, industry support, teacher-student ratio, autonomy, the presence of international students and infrastructure are factors that go into the selection of institutions. While it is desirable to strive for recognition on the basis of these standards, our institutions must be assessed in the light of our own needs and capabilities.

A prerequisite for excellence in higher education is the high quality of the school graduates, who enter the universities. Near hundred percent pass at the school level, the variety of syllabuses in use in the school and the system of all school graduates seeking to enter the universities have a bearing on the quality of higher education. More rigorous testing at the school level and diversion of school graduates to vocational courses on the basis of their capabilities and talents will ensure that our universities get a better corpus of students at the entrance level. If I were to cherry pick from Gandhiji’s views on education, as suggested by Amartya Sen, it should not be his rejection of western education, but his emphasis on vocational education. Dignity of labour and the principle of higher pay for the tougher job should be the norm if we have to divert young people to productive professions without entering universities.

The blueprint that the Kerala State Higher Education Council (KSHEC) presented to the Government last year has identified five areas for special attention—infrastructure, use of technology, teachers’ training, research and autonomy. The expectation is that the package of proposals that will emanate from the Council will constitute the emergence of a new generation of higher education in Kerala, which may be characterized as Higher Education 2.0.

An urgent issue that received the attention of the Council was a set of anomalies and difficulties in the Choice Based Credit and Semester System (CBCSS), introduced at the graduate level recently. Lack of the required working days in each semester, the teacher-student ratio, the five point gradation system and unimaginative selection of books and syllabus were identified as the issues and recommendations were made to rectify them. The Government has approved the recommendations and it is for the Universities to implement them without delay.

The Council also undertook a comprehensive review of the state policy on education. The Government has already picked and chosen several recommendations from our report for implementation. Improvement of the working conditions of the administrative staff in the universities and colleges is one of the recommendations we have stressed. Use of technology is an absolute necessity today. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) has transformed the education scene in developed countries and the same is available free of cost to our teachers and students, provided we have the connectivity. Course content could be simply modified to suit our requirements.

Training of teachers is the highest priority in Higher Education 2.0. A Faculty Training Centre with the proportions of a university has already been designed. No teacher in any faculty should go to the classes without training in teaching methodology. Teachers of exceptional ability should be given incentives and dead wood should be eased out of our higher education institutions.

Multiple assessment institutions are being created all over India and Kerala will give the lead by establishing the first institution at the state level for accreditation and assessment. With the advent of the new Kerala State Accreditation and Assessment Council (KSAAC), the state of assessment of our institutions will see a sea change. KSAAC assessments will be compulsory and it will include gradation of teachers to provide incentives and disincentives. The standards of assessment, already set by an expert group, will be second to none.

Kerala has a fairly large number of research projects in the universities, but not the kind of research that will produce new products and processes. Research institutions of the kind that exist outside the universities must be created in the departments that have the expertise and facilities. Even graduate and postgraduate students must engage in research, leading to entrepreneurships. Many schemes have been announced to incentivize innovation and entrepreneurship, but unless a research culture is developed, our universities cannot create knowledge.

Industries, the main beneficiaries of our higher education, must also become its benefactors. It is not enough that they recruit the graduates and declare them unemployable. They should work with the universities to design courses, invest in them and then insist on quality. The Narayana Murthy Committee had envisaged fifty percent of the investment in higher education emanating from the industries. Kerala established its own committee to study the issue and framed its own constructive proposals for the linkages between industries and institutions.

Kerala does not have a single autonomous college in the state, though there are several, which deserve autonomy, both academic and administrative. But autonomy entails higher responsibilities and accountability. Strict criteria should be observed in creating autonomous colleges. No less a person than Prof. Madhava Menon is heading a group, which is laying down the rules for the implementation of a decision already taken by the Government.

Internationalization of education is a corollary to globalization and the present smattering of foreign collaborations should be expanded. We should also be able to attract foreign students to our universities by designing courses for which India has a particular capability. Indian semesters for foreign students should attract many universities abroad. The Council has been asked to coordinate efforts of the universities in Kerala for internationalization.

Higher Education 2.0 in Kerala should have many more features. It should be developed into a new vision and a blueprint for the future. The resistance to change must change to realize that vision. True, as management gurus say, it is hard, expensive and risky to innovate in established enterprises, such as higher education. But with care, expertise and commitment, it should be possible to reform higher education in Kerala to meet our needs and to benefit from the demographic dividend. We may not find a place in the list of world-class institutions for another generation, but we will be able to equip our leaders of tomorrow for the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century in which India will be one of the power centres of a multipolar world.