UN Peacekeeping Operations

(A talk on Akashavani, Thiruvananthapuram on the occasion of the UN Day 2011)

By T.P.Sreenivasan

As an international organization created at the end of a

devastating world war to rid the world of the scourge of

war, the United Nations gives the highest priority to peace.

While the UN has not been able to prevent wars altogether,

its peace operations--peacemaking, peace building and

peacekeeping have played a role in ending wars, keeping

the peace, alleviating the sufferings inflicted by war and

in rebuilding nations after external and internal conflicts.

Peacekeeping has emerged as a major activity of the UN

for which the UN was awarded the Noble Prize for Peace

In 1998. “The forces represent the manifest will of the

community of nations and have made a decisive contribution

to the resolution of conflict around the world”, it was stated

in a press release on the occasion.

The phrase, “peacekeeping operations” does not appear

in the UN Charter. But it envisages situations where

the UN Security Council can authorize military action to

restore international peace and security if sanctions and

other measures do not succeed. Members of the UN have

undertaken to make available to the Security Council armed

forces and other support services to take enforcement

action. Over the years, the UN has resorted to the use

of force, but it is in peacekeeping that the UN has made

an immense contribution. It has gained considerable

experience in this area and it has evolved a set of principles

and practices, which have come to be universally accepted.

Peacekeeping has been defined as the activity that aims

to create the conditions for lasting peace after a conflict.

Peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post

conflict areas and assist ex-combatants in implementing the

peace agreements they may have signed. Such assistance

comes in many forms, including confidence-building

measures, power sharing arrangements, electoral support,

strengthening the role of law and economic and social

development. Accordingly, UN peacekeepers can include

soldiers, police officers and civilian personnel. Although

civilian personnel can perform many of these functions,

peacekeeping operations are invariably commanded by

military officers and conducted as military operations.

The training and experience of the armed forces and their

discipline are of immense value in conflict situations.

The Security Council alone can authorize peacekeeping

missions and most of the operations are established and

implemented by the UN itself, with troops serving under UN

operational control. The peacekeepers remain members of

their respective armed forces as the UN does not have a

standing army. In cases where direct UN involvement is not

considered appropriate or feasible, the Council authorizes

regional organizations such as NATO, the Economic

Community of West Africa or coalitions of willing states to

undertake peacekeeping tasks.

UN peacekeepers are not expected to fight as they are

generally deployed when the ceasefire is already in place,

with the consent of the parties concerned. But they are

provided with light weapons to deal with provocations or

law and order situations. There have been cases where

the peacekeepers had to use considerable force, with

the help of reinforcements; to end flare ups in volatile

situations. Casualties are also not uncommon among

peacekeepers. The differences between peacekeeping and

peace enforcement fade in these situations.

The procedure for establishing a peacekeeping force

has been clearly established. Once the peace treaty is

negotiated, the parties involved ask the UN Security Council

for a peacekeeping force to oversee the various elements

of the peace plan. After the Security Council approves the

creation of a mission, the Department of Peacekeeping

Operations begins planning to assemble, equip and deploy

the peacekeepers. Since a number of countries are involved

in each operation, setting up a mission is time consuming.

The exact size and strength of the force are agreed to

by the states concerned and the rules of engagement

have to be developed with the consent of all parties,

including the Security Council. Farther, the soldiers or

police officers come from diverse countries with diverse

training systems and it takes time for them to work under

a single commander. For the sake of a uniform doctrine,

NATO military doctrine is followed in most cases. The

peacekeepers find the practices in UN missions different

from national practices and become impatient. But, on the

whole, the UN peacekeeping missions have functioned

effectively in many different situations.

The cost of peacekeeping operations is shared among

member states on the basis of “capacity to pay”, a complex

formula agreed to by all members. The permanent members

bear a higher proportion of the cost. In 1993, peacekeeping

costs had peaked at some USD 3.6 billion. It dropped by

1998, but went up again by 2004. The troop contributing

countries are reimbursed the cost not only of travel and

equipment, but also salaries and other expenses. But

since many member states are not prompt in paying their

contributions, the troop contributing countries, which are

mostly developing countries, end up having huge arrears in

payments.

The first peacekeeping mission, launched in 1948 to enforce

a ceasefire reached between Israel and the Arab states,

remains in operation even today and the conflict has not yet

abated. The second mission, the United Nations Observer

Group on India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), which was

established to monitor the situation in Jammu and Kashmir

is also still in existence. Following the Simla Agreement in

1972, which converted the ceasefire line into the Line of

Control, India has ceased to provide access to UNMOGIP to

the Indian side of Kashmir, but has not sought the removal

of the small UN force. Pakistan continues to insist on

maintaining this mission for political reasons and it remains

an anachronism. But many other missions have been wound

up after fulfilling their mandates.

The UN has so far completed 52 missions in different parts

of the globe, and now has 17 current missions, most of them

in Africa. The missions in Sudan, Darfur, Libya, Afghanistan

and Haiti are very active today, while those in Kashmir,

Cyprus and East Timor remain relics of the past.

Un peacekeeping operations have had spectacular

successes as well as abject failures. Complex missions

in Cambodia and Mozambique fulfilled their missions and

brought about lasting peace, while the missions failed in

Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia. These missions were launched

without the consent of the parties concerned and without

sufficient manpower or equipment. The Rwandan genocide

of 1994 and the massacre in Serbrenica in 1995 remain blots

on the reputation of UN peacekeeping.

Developing countries contribute more troops to UN

peacekeeping operations than developed countries. The

United States has launched operations on behalf of the

UN, but they do not send troops to the forces commanded

by other nationals. NATO also prefers to operate on its

own, with or without a UN mandate. Other countries

claim operational commitments to decline invitations to

contribute troops to the UN. Some small countries like Fiji

use the opportunities of participating in UN peacekeeping

operations to train their forces in battle conditions. The

general public in Fiji complained to the UN when the Fiji

armed forces used their experience in peacekeeping to put

down protests by its own people, following a military coup in

that country.

UN peacekeeping operations are fraught with dangers

and they have suffered many casualties in the course of

their functioning. India alone has lost more than a hundred

soldiers in peacekeeping operations. Even while acting

within its mandate, peacekeepers become a target for

attacks by some of the parties in a conflict. At the same

time, UN peacekeepers have been charged with prostitution,

child abuse and other crimes against the very people they

protect. Certain studies have shown that the arrival of

UN peacekeepers has been associated with the rise of

such crimes. “The issue with the UN is that peacekeeping

operations unfortunately seem to be doing the same thing

that other militaries do. Even the guardians have to be

guarded”, observed a writer in 2004. But the UN has taken

strong action against the guilty and brought in reform to

prevent such crimes.

India is solidly committed to UN peacekeeping operations,

in which India has participated since the 1950s. We have

contributed nearly 100,000 troops and participated in more

than 40 missions. India has also provided eminent force

commanders to peacekeeping missions. Indian casualties

numbering 118 are one of the highest in the world, but there

have been no domestic criticism on this account. India’s

expertise in peacekeeping activities, such as demining,

has been put to good use in many situations. Indian forces

earned much praise in Somalia for their humanitarian

activities, while the operations themselves incurred the

wrath of the local public.

India has also been advocating reform of the peacekeeping

machinery to meet the challenges of the times and to

improve the image of UN peacekeepers. We are of the view

that the mandates given by the Security Council to the

missions are too broad and have very little correlation with

the ability of the organization to deliver. We have proposed

that the Security Council should invite non-Council

members, particularly troop contributing countries, to

participate in the decisions of the Security Council

concerning the deployment of the forces and related

matters. The field support provided to the forces needs to

be further expanded and strengthened. India fully supports

implementation of a policy of zero tolerance with regard to

conduct and discipline of troops, including sexual

exploitation and abuse. UN peacekeeping must be in

accordance with Chapter VIII and should not be

regionalized. India is also in favour of the induction of more

female peacekeepers. We also support identifying “sunset

missions”, which have fulfilled their mandates and

proceeding to wind them up. Some questions have been

asked whether India should participate in the UN missions,

which are of no particular relevance to India, in the context

of some allegations against Indian troops in the Congo. But

India remains one of the largest troop contributors, next

only to Bangladesh and Pakistan. India has also established

a centre for training of peacekeepers in New Delhi, which

attracts military officers from around the globe.

UN peacekeeping operations have been a major contribution

to the maintenance of international peace and security.

It has evolved over the years from a military exercise to

a composite operation involving not only enforcement

of peace agreements, but humanitarian assistance and

reconstruction to provide basic needs to the affected

people. It has become the human face of the United Nations

for millions of people who have become embroiled in war for

no fault of theirs. Humanity owes a debt of gratitude to the

UN as we celebrate another UN Day on October 24.

Thank you.

UNGA Applauds PM’s Statesmanship

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Diplomats at the UN, burdened by the weight of their national
positions, do not applaud statements by leaders of other countries
except at the end of their speeches as dictated by tradition. They
rarely burst into applause over an idea or a declaration as nothing is
taken at face value. Speeches are for analysis in depth for new
nuances in policy. But they applauded Dr. Manmohan Singh when he read
out a short paragraph on UN reform.

“We must address the issue of the deficit in global governance. We
need a stronger and more effective United Nations that is sensitive to
the aspirations of everyone- rich or poor, big or small. For this, the
United Nations and its principal organs, the General Assembly and the
Security Council, must be revitalized and reformed. The reform and
expansion of the Security Council are essential if it is to reflect
contemporary reality. Such an outcome will enhance the Council’s
credibility and effectiveness in dealing with global issues. Early
reform of the Security Council must be pursued with renewed vigour and
urgently enacted,” Dr. Manmohan Singh said.

What attracted attention was the clear and forthright statement on
reform, which can be endorsed by 193 member states, including the
permanent members. All of them acknowledge that the Security Council
needs reform to reflect contemporary reality and to enhance its
credibility and effectiveness. But if the Prime Minister had gone
beyond this even to say that both the permanent and non- permanent
categories should be expanded, the applause would have been less. If
he pleaded for G-4 or went into the merits of India’s claim, he would
have been greeted with stony silence. By speaking for all nations
without going into details, India expressed its confidence that it
cannot be excluded if the Council is expanded. This was more effective
than the usual assertion of the Indian claim on every occasion.
Statesmanship and restraint have paid off instantly. Whatever he may
have discussed with his counterparts in the corridors, the position he
articulated in the speech was dignified and it helped to remove the
impression that securing permanent membership was India’s highest
priority in the UN.

In fact, the whole speech of the Prime Minister at the General
Assembly this year was statesmanlike. He spoke not just for India, but
for the world and sought solutions for the economic and political ills
of the world. He plunged straight into the economic scene without much
of an introduction and identified the adverse impact of globalization.
Coming as it did from Dr.Manmohan Singh, the assessment seemed
surprising. Though he did not go into remedies, the diagnosis clearly
indicated that the globalization did not yield the kind of results
expected of it.
Given the atmospherics in New York, which focused on the Middle East
in general and Palestine in particular, Dr.Manmohan Singh could not
have skirted the problems of the region. Though the Arab Spring was
inspired by a welcome demand by the people for the right to shape
their own future, the consequence was spiraling price rise and
instability. The steadfast support for a Palestine state was balanced
by asserting the need for the region to live in peace with Israel. The
strongest political message he delivered to the west was, “The
observance of the rule of law is as important in international affairs
as it is within countries. Societies cannot be reordered from outside
through military force.” But he did not spare authoritarian regimes.
“Governments are duty bound to their citizens to create conditions
that enable them to freely determine their pathways to development.
This is the essence of democracy and fundamental freedoms”, he said.
In other words, the Prime Minister categorically stated the rationale
behind the positions adopted by India in the Security Council in the
last nine months. Together with his meeting with the President of Iran
and the announcement made in New York that he would visit Iran, the
Prime Minister’s statement may well be taken as a signal that India
was expanding its options all around.

The Prime Minister spoke of terrorism, encouraging signs of
cooperation in South Asia, need for reconciliation in Afghanistan,
piracy, disarmament and safety of nuclear plants, the international
issues that have been engaging his attention. He also gave
considerable attention to the old and traditional links with Africa
and the Least Developed Countries. The only references he made to
domestic issues, which were dogging him to New York was about poverty
alleviation and the importance of a democratic, plural and secular
India.

UN speeches are not occasions to change policy, but to elaborate
national positions in a manner that will influence friends and
adversaries alike. Dr. Manmohan Singh clearly gave the impression that
he was resorting to some of the old ideological strains and old
constituencies to signal his disappointment with the west. But he did
it in a language which nobody would take exception to. As the adage
goes, a diplomat is a person, who can make someone look forward to the
trip if he is asked to go to hell.

Having been a ghost writer of UN speeches for prime ministers and
foreign ministers, I know the processes and procedures that go into
the exercise of preparing speeches. Inputs come from various sources
and it is a challenge to create a cohesive and comprehensive speech
from a multitude of drafts. One foreign minister had the habit of
asking various officials and academics for ideas for the speech and it
was hard to wade through the flood of material that came in. Often,
the speech became a tour d’ horizon, stretching into several pages and
covering much of the agenda of the General Assembly. The speech this
time had the merit of being elegant, precise and brief. It provided
the backdrop for Indian positions in the General Assembly and the
Security Council.

Foreign visits and UN accolades give some relief to Prime Ministers
when they are under siege by intractable domestic issues. The case of
Dr. Manmohan Singh was no different, with one of the scams exploding
at the very time he was meeting his counterparts and giving thought to
the global economic and political challenges “at a time of great
uncertainty and profound change.” The applause in the General Assembly
was not drowned out by the opposition in India and the PM’s world view
appeared to enjoy consensus back home, not a mean achievement in these
turbulent times.

Clouds over nuclear power

T.P.Sreenivasan


Fukushima has dropped off the radar screens around the world even as the affected people and the Japanese government are still trying to cope with the devastation caused by the nuclear meltdown. The situation is still so sensitive that the Japanese minister of trade and industry was forced to resign after making thoughtless remarks on what he saw in the affected areas. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has stopped issuing daily updates, but with a dire statement on June 2: “Overall, the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant remains very serious”, nuclear power enthusiasts around the globe cannot but remember the words of the IAEA evaluation group: “Nuclear designers and operators should appropriately evaluate measures for protection against the risks of all natural hazards and should periodically update these assessments”. Fukushima continues to cast its long shadow on nuclear power everywhere.

The renewed protests and fasts at Koodankulam have received little attention in India, but questions are being asked in nuclear circles about the safety standards of the reactors there. Russian technology, tainted by Chernobyl, has always been of concern, but Koodankulam is vital for India’s nuclear power development. Even before the India-US nuclear deal, it was possible for Russia to supply reactors and fuel as the contract dated back to the pre-NSG days.

No doubt, Koodankulam has to go forward for our immediate needs and any setback will be costly. The only option for the government is to take necessary and immediate action to convince the people about safety and to rehabilitate the displaced people. A disaster relief programme should also be put in place. We should take Sri Lanka into confidence about the safety standards at Koodankulam because of its proximity to the nuclear station. Issues raised by clustering of nuclear stations raised after Fukushima should also be examined. The call by the Tamil Nadu chief minister, followed by a resolution of the Tamil Nadu Cabinet, to halt the project till the settlement of the issues raised by the protesters is realistic and timely. The concerned central minister has assured the protesters that safety will take priority over power production. This is the principle that should apply in general to every power project that is constructed. No amount of declarations by scientists will allay the fears, because they are presumed to have vested interests. What will reassure the public more is an assurance that India will develop alternative sources of energy to reduce its dependence on nuclear power.

At the very time that the Koodankulam protests were gathering momentum, the chairman of our Atomic Energy Commission announced at the general conference of the IAEA that the first unit was set to begin operation and that the second unit was also on course. This is not the first time that the disconnect between science and politics has been on display in India.

A report by a number of Russian government agencies submitted to President Dmitry Medvedev has revealed that Russian atomic reactors are grievously under-prepared for both natural and man-made disasters. In an annex to the report, 31 serious flaws that make Russia’s nuclear industry extremely vulnerable are catalogued. This contradicts Russia’s claim that its reactors can withstand any natural calamity. The authorities have responded by saying that heavy investments can rectify the flaws. The question is whether our authorities have taken note of the report and taken follow-up action with the Russians.

An explosion in a French furnace dedicated to melting of low level radioactive waste on September 12 has been treated as an industrial rather than a nuclear accident on the ground that there was no radiation outside the plant. But it is still not clear what set off the explosion. Considering that every part of the nuclear industry raises safety issues, are we in touch with the French to learn more about the accident? The IAEA appears silent on this as it was only an industrial accident. Our involvement with France is deep already and it is likely to be the expanded further. Any development in the nuclear industry in France should be a matter of anxiety to us.

The latest report from Vienna is that India intends to delay the import of French reactors till we get new test results. According to the French energy minister, India wants a ‘post-Fukushima’ certification before finalising the multimillion dollar contract. This is welcome news for those in Jaitapur and elsewhere.

The recent earthquake of 5.8 magnitude, followed by cyclone Irene, on the east coast of the US also had its impact on the public perception of nuclear power. The earthquake caused the shutdown of two reactors in Central Virginia. Fortunately, the safety measures kicked in promptly and nothing untoward happened. At least 18 reactors at different locations in the US declared unusual events and six reactors scaled down production during the cyclone period and these are still being investigated and analysed.

A new country to disavow nuclear power is Taiwan. In Germany, Siemens has just declared that it will keep out of the nuclear industry. As for Japan itself, it is now well known that its nuclear industry is poised to shrink dramatically over the next decade. If the Daiichi plant was decommissioned in February this year, when it completed its life span, a major tragedy could have been averted.

India can no longer ignore the clouds gathering on the nuclear firmament and proceed with business as usual. Fukushima has caused reactor orders around the world to be scrapped, frozen or delayed. India’s own ambition to export our small reactors may have become unrealistic. The argument that the movement against nuclear power has arisen out of vested interests cannot be sustained any longer. The development argument can be accepted in the short term till we develop alternatives. But India can no longer stick to its position that it will pursue the path of developing nuclear power for all time to come. There is force in the argument that the seven per cent nuclear component we want to achieve in our energy mix can be replaced with other forms of energy if we have the will to do it. We should be able to envision a nuclear power free world in the long term so that the people will accept development of nuclear power in the short term. The concern is basically more about the hazards for future generations than about immediate danger.

PM steps on to the shifting sands at the UN


By T.P.Sreenivasan

The belated decision of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to attend the UN General Assembly after a break is wise, though a more timely decision would have made the visit more fruitful. More than anything else, the trip will ease the impression both at home and abroad that he is bogged down in corruption scandals and is in no position to interact with the world, not to speak of taking international initiatives. The argument that prevailed in the decision must have been that as a non-permanent member of the Security Council, India is in the limelight and the positions our Permanent Representative has taken in the Security Council need to be backed by the political leadership. The Prime Minister may not have any initiative to announce in his speech, but his view of the world will be of some significance at this time of "unbridled consequences". India cannot but be seen to be capable and willing to play a role in the unfolding drama on the world stage.

A mistake that can be made, however, is to give the impression that the Prime Minister is on a hunt for what has come to be known as the "Holy Grail" of Indian foreign policy, namely, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai rightly emphasised other issues of importance to India, such as finding solutions for global economic and financial problems, counter terrorism, peacekeeping operations etc together with securing a robust and all inclusive role for all members of the UN. He, of course, mentioned the G-4 initiative and our decision to pursue reforms.

The buzz that a decision on the Security Council expansion is close at hand is misleading. Our goal of being a permanent member with the same rights and privileges as the other permanent members cannot be achieved under the laid down procedure for amendment to the UN Charter. It will be too revolutionary a change for the permanent members and others to accept at this time. The best that can be accomplished is the creation of a new category of members, who may serve longer terms on the Council. Such an expansion will not be in the spirit of the argument that the Security Council should reflect the realities of the present. The latest proposal for an "interim solution", which seems to gain momentum in Europe is even more dubious, because the idea of longer terms for some non-permanent members, if adopted as an "interim solution", may close the door for a comprehensive expansion. India's claim has been established and generally accepted and we should express confidence rather than appear anxious to accept a "quick fix".

Qatar, which has assumed an international profile beyond its size because of its wealth and imaginative initiatives, happens to be the President of the 66th UN General Assembly. Coincidentally, the present session of the General Assembly is preoccupied with Arab issues, with the perennial Palestine issue demanding immediate attention on account of the declared intention of Palestine to seek full membership of the UN. Palestine's options range from going to the Security Council and getting a veto from the United States to seeking an enhanced observer status through a majority vote in the General Assembly. Whichever option that Mahmoud Abbas chooses, the most he can achieve is to convince Israel and the US that they have to face the issue of statehood sooner rather than later. Frantic efforts are on to avoid a showdown and thus Palestine has already succeeded in emphasising that the US and Israel should engage in more equitable negotiations. But Palestine faces accusations of unilateralism and efforts to illelegitimize Israel. At the same time, as Ambassador Gharekhan has ponted out, Israel and the US have a stake in the continuation of Abbbas as the leader of Palestine. "Neither Israel nor the US will find any one as reasonable as Abbas, who may feel obliged to take some drastic step in case his initiative fails, such as resigning his post, thereby leaving the field to extremist elements among his people", he observes. Ideally, the Security Council should move for a two-nation solution with borders of 1967 in place with Jerusalem divided into two capitals. But the time has not come for such a solution as yet.

India has no dilemma on Palestine as we recognise Palestine as a state and we can vote for any Palestine move even though our relations with Israel has become crucial. Israel has shown understanding of the Indian compulsions in supporting Palestine and any effort on our side to moderate Palestine will not be of benefit to us. As a consistent supporter of Palaestine, we have no role to play as an intermediary.

We have to tread cautiously on the "Arab Spring" issues, particularly on Libya and Syria. We have already made amendments for our abstention on Libya in the Security Council by joining the Friends of Libya group and by recognising the National Transitional Council. On Syria, we have moderated the condemnation of human rights violations and moves for drastic sanctions so far. But these efforts by the west will gain momentum during the session with more countries expressing opinions on Syria, though the action will remain in the Security Council. The US has already expressed disappointment that India has demonstrated its old "nonaligned mindset" in dealing with the Arab Spring. A more realistic approach in facing the inevitable should be attempted even though we cannot go along with regime changing intervention. We should be able to support some kind of humanitarian intervention, if necessary, in some situations.

Since the Prime Minister is not meeting either President Obama or a Pakistani leader, much of the hype about a visit to the UN will be absent this time. President Obama has other preoccupations and India -US relations are in such a state that a meeting cannot lead to any spectacular results. But the US goals and priorities, outlined by the State Department augur well for multilateralism. In a departure from the attitude of the Bush Administration, Washington now believes in constructive engagement of the UN system and avoids threats of disengagement and non-payment of dues as pressure tactics. By working with the UN system, they have been able to get results on Libya, North Korea, Iran. Syria etc and even recognition of gay rights as human rights. We have an opportunity to work with the US also on development issues by supporting initiatives on non-communicable diseases, nutrition etc for which high level meetings have been held.

Bilateral meetings are the staple of General Assembly sessions. A visit to the UN during the General Debate is like visiting a hundred nations and a head of state or government, who is agile and not too concerned with protocol can get business done by "running into" their counterparts in the halls or the corridors. Indian leaders generally prefer more formal meetings, but even these can be valuable. It may appear ironical that our Prime Minister should travel all the way to New York to meet the leaders of Nepal or Sri Lanka, but the ambiance of the UN is more congenial to interact even with close neighbours. The leaders of South Sudan, the newest member of the UN, can also be cultivated during the visit. Turkey's emergence as a key player during the current session should also receive our attention.

The President of the General Assembly, the veteran Qatari diplomat, Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, has identified four priority areas for action during his term. The role of mediation in peaceful settlement of disputes, his highest priority, may cause us some headaches because we do not accept mediation in our own problems with Pakistan, but as long as the countries involved in the disputes want mediation, we do not need to object. UN reform, his second priority, improving disaster prevention, his third and sustainable development and global prosperity, his fourth priority match our own thinking and open out possibilities for us to work with him.

Al-Nasser said on assumption of office that the General assembly is an "opportunity to define our place in this decisive moment in history and to prove that we have the courage, wisdom and tenacity to seek creative and visionary solutions". He said, even more significantly, "the sands are shifting." Our Prime Minister is not new to shifting sands either domestically or internationally and he is sure to tread the sands with sure feet.

The case for an IIT in Kerala- A Letter to the Chief Minister


Shri Oommen Chandy September 15, 2011
Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Kerala
Thiruvananthapuram
Dear Sir,
We, the undersigned, are a group of intellectuals who have been associated with one or more of the Indian Institutes of Technologies in India as students, administrators, faculty or governing board members.
We are all keen to ensure that an IIT is established in Kerala too. We are aware that the Government of India is considering establishment of 5 more IITs in India. We are concerned that Kerala’s legitimate demand for an IIT will be overlooked this time also for political or other considerations.
We believe that the claim of Kerala for an IIT is more legitimate than even before and the clout of Kerala in Delhi is the highest ever. We have the same alliance as ruling party in both Center and State and we have representatives of the same party in the Education and Human Resources Ministries in Kerala and India respectively. We, therefore, believe that the time is NOW to make a determined effort to bring an IIT to Kerala.
We are, therefore, writing to you to seek your personal attention in doing the appropriate political and administrative groundwork to make a case for an IIT in Kerala. We know you need not be convinced about the legitimacy of Kerala’s claim, but in order to illustrate the need to bring IIT to Kerala and the strength of our case, we have put together some facts and figures. This concept note is attached for your kind perusal.
We, the members of a voluntary group, stand ready to assist you in any way possible, in making IIT Kerala a reality. We have been encouraged by hundreds of other intellectuals who have been associated with IITs and see the importance and legitimacy of our demand.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely
(A.E. Muthunayagam) (T.P. Sreenivasan) (Nivedita P. Haran)
(M.P. Rajan) (Muralee Thummarukudy) (K.V. Jayakumar)
(Job Kurien) (P.S. Robi ) (Narayanan Komerath)
(V.K. Mathews) (Ramesh Chandra) (C.M. Abraham)
IIT Kerala - A Concept Paper
Establishing an IIT in Kerala is a long standing demand and dream of highly literate Kerala for many years. Various Governments have taken the initiative to bring an IIT to Kerala, but somehow nothing has materialized yet. In support of the Government of Kerala's steps to bring an IIT to Kerala, a group of well-wishers has come together and prepared a concept paper. We trust that this will help the Government to look into the problem more seriously and make all the efforts needed to bring an IIT to our state. The committee listed below was formed by the group to prepare this concept paper, and acknowledges the support and input from other members and stake holders of the intellectual group of IITians from Kerala. Our concept paper addresses the following points:
Executive Summary
• Does Kerala need an IIT?
• Does Kerala deserve an IIT?
• Does an IIT help the state in its future development?
• Steps to be taken by Kerala Government to get an IIT and finally
• Conclusion
Members of the Committee
1. Dr. A.E. Muthunayagam, Former Chairman, Board of Governors, IIT Madras
2. Mr. T.P. Sreenivasan, IFS, Ambassador (Rtd)
3. Dr. Nivedita P. Haran, IAS, IIT-Alumni
4. Prof. M.P. Rajan, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Thiruvananthapuram
5. Dr. Muralee Thummarukudy, Chief, Disaster Risk Reduction, UN Enviourn. Programme, Geneva
6. Prof. K.V. Jayakumar, Executive Director, CWRDM, Kerala
7. Prof. Job Kurien, Indian Institute of Technology Madras
8. Prof. P.S. Robi, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
9. Prof. Narayanan Komerath, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
10. Mr. V.K. Mathews, Executive Chairman, The IBS Group, Thiruvananthapuram
11. Mr. Ramesh Chandra, Managing Director, Ranal Ltd. Bangalore
12. Mr. C.M. Abraham, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Thiruvananthapuram
1. INTRODUCTION
There have been sporadic requests in the past thirty years for an IIT in Kerala. However, of late we do not hear that. This is not because we have an IIT or a comparable technical institution in Kerala now. This is partly because we have been tired of asking for one during every expansion and being rejected. We were promised an IIT in the previous expansion but unfortunately we lost the battle to get this premier institution to our state.
The Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) were established as the premier institutes of our country with the focus of training talented minds in becoming creative, top quality engineers and scientists . The intention was to generate high calibre human capital to help the nation in its socio-economic development. The IITs are governed by the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 which has declared them as “institutions of national importance” with autonomous status. There are 15 IITs at present in India. A committee headed by Dr. Anil Kakodkar was constituted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India to suggest the road map to develop the IITs as world-class institutes for research and higher learning. They recommended another five IITs to be created within a decade. Now many states have an IIT, as per the data given below in Table I.
Sl.No.
Name of the IIT
Year Established
Place
State
1
IIT Kharagpur
1951
Kharagpur
West Bengal
2
IIT Bombay
1958
Mumbai
Maharashtra
3
IIT Madras
1959
Chennai
Tamilnadu
4
IIT Kanpur
1959
Kanpur
Uttar Pradesh
5
IIT Delhi
1963
Delhi
Delhi
6
IIT Guwahati
1994
Guwahati
Assam
7
IIT Roorkee
2001
Roorkee
Uttarakhand
8
IIT Hyderabad
2008
Hyderabad
Andhra Pradesh
9
IIT Gandhinagar
2008
Gandhinagar
Gujarat
10
IIT Patna
2008
Patna
Bihar
11
IIT Rajasthan
2008
Jodhpur
Rajasthan
12
IIT Bhubaneswar
2008
Bhubaneswar
Orissa
13
IIT Ropar
2008
Rupnagar
Punjab
14
IIT Indore
2009
Indore
Madhya Pradesh
15
IIT Mandi
2009
Mandi
Himachal Pradesh
Table I: List of IITs in India
IT-BHU is in the process of being named as the 16-th IIT resulting in UP getting two IITs in the same state. But Kerala's dream of getting an IIT is still a distant dream. Should we not get one among the 4 being considered for establishment? If our state government does not pursue this matter urgently, we will once again lose a golden opportunity to get an IIT. The neighbouring state of Karnataka has also been asking for an IIT in their state for many years.
2. DOES KERALA NEED AN IIT?
Examples around the world show how a state gains economic advancement from having an institute that imparts and performs top quality education and research. Kerala now has around 120 engineering colleges, including many private colleges which are set up Capitation Fee business plans, one State University of science and technology, one National Institute of Technology, one Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, one Space Institute and one Indian Institute of Management. However, competing with the best in the world, requires a merit-based, autonomous technological institution with world-class infrastructure. We lack that. The recenly-established IISER is promising, but is mainly set up for education in basic sciences.
IITs are known worldwide for their quality in technical education. The fact is that an IIT is not just a big engineering college, better NIT or a fully residential technological University. IITs are a group of autonomous engineering and technology-oriented institutes of higher education. As mentioned earlier, the IITs are governed by the Indian Institute of Technology Act, 1961 which has declared them as “institutions of national importance”, and lays down their powers, duties, and framework for governance. This Act provides IITs with substantial administrative freedom and total academic autonomy. This freedom has been zealously guarded by all the IITs for past 60 years. Most importantly, IITs have the faculty and administrators needed to enforce a proud tradition of purely merit-based admission and grading systems. This is crucial to providing opportunities and nurturing the best of India, regardless of non-merit considerations. Selection of students and faculty in IITs is done transparently leading to some of our best brains entering IIT as students and faculty. It is the combination of these factors which makes IITs one of the most prestigious and the only globally recognised academic institutions in India.
Each IIT has autonomous status, where admission for undergraduate and post graduate programs is decided through common admission tests. In addition to these each IIT also offers Ph.D programs. Since the IITs are Central Government institutions, the Government of India has deployed considerable resources to these institutes to give them the required physical infrastructure. The faculty-to-student ratio in the IITs is envisaged to be around 1:9. In order to encourage students from all economic strata to undertake higher studies, IITs provide scholarships to students to pursue M.Tech. and Ph.D programs, where research is an integral part of their education. The combination of the resources and branding ensured that the best students in the country were attracted to IITs. Academic freedom, availability of physical resources to undertake research and presence of quality students in turn attracted good quality faculty to join the IITs. IITs are also different from other engineering colleges or Universities primarily in the degree of autonomy that the individual faculty members have in framing the syllabus considering the latest technological trends, teaching approaches and evaluation methods. These features enabled IIT alumni and faculty, within a few short decades, to build the international brand recognition that the IITs enjoy today, on par with top institutions worldwide that have existed for hundreds of years. Below we review some of the features of the IIT experience.
Each IIT has an Academic Senate consisting of all Professors and student representatives with the Director as the ex-officio Chairman. The Senate controls and approves the curriculum, courses, examinations and results, and appoints committees to look into specific academic matters. The Senate also periodically reviews the teaching, training and research activities of the institute to maintain educational standards.
All the IITs follow the continuous evaluation system. The B.Tech course is based on 4-year program. In all IITs, the first year courses are marked by a common course structure for all the students. These include the basics from most of the departments such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, mechanical engineering, mechanics, electronics, biology, etc. All the students also have to choose between NCC, NSS, NSO to instil a sense of team effort and national pride.
From the second year onwards, the students study subjects exclusively from their respective departments in addition to some compulsory advanced courses from other departments in order to broaden their education. At the end of the third year, undergraduate students have to undertake a summer project in industry or at a reputed academic research institute as part of the curriculum. Most of the students are placed into industrial and research organizations during the last year of their studies through the placement cell. Each IIT has a central library holding a large collection of high quality books, journals, periodicals, multimedia facilities and electronic libraries. They also provide access to on-line journals and periodicals for use by students, and stay open late into the night.
The striking feature of all the IITs is the on-campus residential facilities for the students, research scholars and faculty. This feature facilitates all the students to concentrate on academic activities round the clock. The students can approach faculty members at any time to discuss academics and research. During their project period, the students can also work in the laboratories even during night hours. In addition, the gymkhana and sports facilities are an integral part of the IIT system, where the students get a chance for extra curricular activities and personality development.
The focus of the national institutes of importance such as IISER and IIM are scientific education and research and, management respectively. IIST, a supporting institute of ISRO, is focused on training personnel for ISRO, rather than on a broad technological education. The NIT has neither the infrastructure nor the other unique features of an IIT that would enable growth towards world-class recognition.
Science is the foundation of technology; however, technological innovation is what drives further scientific development as well as economic growth. The growth in scientific and technological development is an indication of the growth and development of a state or nation. Our state needs an IIT to help Kerala rise to our true potential.
3. DOES KERALA DESERVE AN IIT?
Out of 28 states and 7 union territories, 14 states and one union territory have IITs (see Table I). We analyse the question of Kerala's claim to have an IIT in the state using a few objective criteria:
• Population Size
• Literacy
• Economy
• Geography
3.1 Population Size of the State
With 14 of the states and one Union Territory already being awarded an IIT, and UP possibly getting second IIT shortly, let us look at the states which have not yet been awarded an IIT. It is also useful to compare Kerala's position with other states already having an IIT with respect to population size. Kerala accounts for 2.76% of India’s 1.2 billion population.
Population Rank
State
Population(2011 Census)
% in Total Population
1
Karnataka
61,130,704
5.05
2
Kerala
33,387,677
2.76
3
Jharkhand
32,966,238
2.72
4
Chhattisgarh
25,540,196
2.11
5
Haryana
25,353,081
2.09
6
Jammu & Kashmir
12,548,926
1.04
7
Tripura
3,671,032
0.30
8
Meghalaya
2,964,007
0.24
9
Manipur
2,721,756
0.22
10
Nagaland
1,980,602
0.16
11
Goa
1,457,723
0.12
12
Arunachal Pradesh
1,382,611
0.11
13
Mizoram
1,091,014
0.09
14
Sikkim
607,688
0.05
Table II - Population of states not having IIT
Population Rank
State
Population(2011 Census)
% in Total Population
1
Assam
31,169,272
2.58
2
Punjab
27,704,236
2.29
3
Uttarakhand
10,166,752
0.84
4
Himachal Pradesh
6,856,509
0.57
Table III - Population of states having IIT but less than the population of Kerala
From Table-II and Table-III we see that four states with population less than Kerala already have IITs. Karnataka is the only state having population 5.96% , above Kerala in population; however, we note that Bangalore already has the world-renowned Indian Institute of Science and the Indian Institute of Management. We wish Karnataka well, and point to the economic and technological development that these institutions have already brought to our neighboring state. The rest of the states have population less than Kerala. Hence, in terms of size of the population, Kerala certainly is overdue for an IIT.
3.2 Literacy
Malayalees have always led India in our thirst for knowledge. Kerala has for a long time been the most literate state of India, even in the 1960s when our state was desperately poor. As per the 2011 census, Kerala still holds the first position with 93.91% compared to the national rate of 74.04%. Kerala thus will naturally lead the table of the states which do not have an IIT. Ironically, Kerala even tops the states which do have an IIT. With so much emphasis placed on education, it is only natural that Kerala should get due consideration for the establishment of the next IIT.
3.3 Economy
In order for a state to make full advantage of an IIT, it is important that it has an economy which is able to at least partly make use of the intellectual capital present and generated in the IITs. The new strategy for IIT expansion places an increased emphasis on academy-economy linkages. It is, therefore, useful to check how Kerala ranks among those states which do not have an IIT.
Rank
State
Size of Economy in Indian Rupee(10 Million)
%of Total GDP
Per Capita Income
1
Karnataka
335,747
5.39
50,676
2
Kerala
230,316
3.70
59,179
3
Haryana
216,287
3.47
78,781
4
Chhattisgarh
109,823
1.76
38,059
5
Jharkhand
106,358
1.71
30,719
6
Jammu & Kashmir
43,236
0.69
30,582
7
Goa
25,882
0.42
132,719
8
Tripura
14,604
0.23
35,799
9
Meghalaya
12,502
0.20
42,601
10
Manipur
8,687
0.14
28,531
11
Nagaland
7,508
0.12
21,434
12
Arunachal Pradesh
7,241
0.12
51,644
13
Mizoram
5,633
0.09
45,982
14
Sikkim
3,475
0.06
48,937
Table IV - Economy of states not having an IIT
Similar to population, it is also useful to check how Kerala ranks with those states which do have IITs.
Rank
State
Size of Economy in Indian Rupee(10 Million)
%of Total GDP
Per Capita Income
1
Kerala
230,316
3.70%
59,179
2
Delhi (UT)
217,860
3.49%
78,690
3
Madhya Pradesh
216,958
3.48%
27,250
4
Punjab
199,459
3.20%
62,153
5
Bihar
168,603
2.71%
16,119
6
Orissa
162,327
2.61%
33,226
7
Assam
92,472
1.48%
27,197
8
Uttarakhand
62,214
1.00%
55,877
9
Himachal Pradesh
43,281
0.69%
50,365
Table V - Economy of states below that of Kerala but having an IIT
The domestic GDP rate of Kerala is 3.7% holding 9-th position at the national level with average per capital income of Rs. 59,179. From Tables IV and V, it is clear that at least 8 states who had their economy smaller than Kerala have been granted an IIT. Moreover, Kerala holds second position in GDP among states that do not have IITs. A summary of the above discussion comparing Kerala's position with states having an IIT in terms of population, literacy and economy is presented in Chart I and a respective criterion comparison with states that do not have an IIT is presented in Chart II.
Chart I: Comparison with states having an IIT
Chart II: Comparison with states that do not have an IIT
3.4 Geographical Proximity
Government of India has sanctioned IIT in other states by taking in to account various factors. Regional balance is one of the important criteria that any Government may consider while making such an allotment. Since the most prestigious programme in IITs are its undergraduate programme, the geographical proximity to an IIT is critical in terms of parents feeling comfortable to sent their wards to IITs. Map I shows the location of various IITs in India.
Map I: Location of IITs in India
It also shows that the densely-populated, highly literate southwest part of India is devoid of IITs. Let us compare the geographical clustering of location of IITs. Kerala is the southern-most state of India. The closest IIT to Kerala is in Chennai, which is around 800 km from Trivandrum and on an average 600 km from anywhere in Kerala. The next closest one is in Mumbai followed by Hyderabad. If we look at Chennai as a hub of southern part of India, IIT Chennai is far away from Kerala. If we take Delhi as the centre of northern part of India, within 6 to 7 hours journey, there are at least 4 IITs. That is, within 300 to 400 KM circle there are 4 IITs. Within 500 km of Kolkata or Mumbai, there is more than one IIT making the IIT more accessible to students of those states.
Apart from all these objective criterion, Kerala holds the first position in the human development index. Kerala has achieved significant improvements in conditions of living, infant mortality rate and social development that are comparable to those of many developed countries, even though the state's per capita income is low in comparison. We also note again that although Karnataka does not have an IIT, it has a national institute of importance, Indian Institute of Science ( IISc ) which has undergraduate and post-graduate level degree programs in both Science and Engineering. That institute is at par with an IIT. Therefore, Kerala can be considered as the frontrunner of getting an IIT. Hence, Kerala's claim to have an IIT in the state is more than fair, it is urgent and undeniable.
4. DOES AN IIT HELP THE STATE IN ITS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT?
One of the major criticisms raised against IITs is that IITs are nothing but a processing centre for facilitating brain drain. The IITs have been successful in preparing students to compete with the best anywhere in the world. This is proven by the fact that many, in fact a good proportion, of IIT graduates have gone abroad or taken careers which are not related to engineering. Some argue, albeit without merit, that these alumni do not contribute to the original objectives of IIT or of the state. The concept of “brain drain” and the narrow vision of what an IIT graduate can do in life, are both outdated and discredited. It is worthy to note that IIT graduates are sought out as students for masters and Ph.D programs by the top institutions worldwide. Many have earned their higher education and returned back to India with that experience. IIT graduates who stayed back in India have chosen a range of career paths from Engineering to Management to Civil Service to Entrepreneurship. It is now well established that regardless of the path they chose, they have excelled in their career field and contributed to the confidence of emerging India. A few names noteworthy are: Shri N.R. Narayana Murthy of Infosys, Dr. Subba Rao, Governor of Reserve bank, Shri Anil Agarwal, Shri Nandan Nilekani, etc. In the following, we would address the key benefits of having an IIT in the state. Events in the past 20 years have completely debunked the “brain drain” superstition. The contribution of IIT alumni to the revolution in computer and information technology is well-known. The rise of India as a superpower in that field is directly attributable to the excellent preparation imparted by the IITs and IISc, as well as the contributions of their alumni who first showed that Indians could compete worldwide, then opened the doors for Indian workers and exports all over the world, and today they are building the most innovative industries in India. Today the revolution in manufacturing is spreading rapidly to all fields. It is hard to see how any of this could have happened so quickly, if Indians were unwilling, unable or too lazy and backward to venture out, perform and compete with the best in the world.
There is no system of state or regional reservation in the IITs. Having an IIT in Kerala does not guarantee any more seats for Malayalees than establishing a new IIT in the Andaman or in Jammu and Kashmir. Some might therefore ask "Is there any benefit to the State?". At the undergraduate level, the mere presence of an IIT would boost the motivation of the school students of Kerala to try for admission in IIT. For instance, it is a fact that IIT Chennai has many students who got admission from local Chennai colleges. The same is true of IIT Mumbai, Delhi and Kharagpur. The statistics of IIT Guwahati would reveal that there was a continuous increase in the number of students getting admitted to IITs from the north eastern regions since its inception in the year 1994. However, the benefit to a state from having a top post-graduate technological institution, can be easily seen from the growth stories of California and Massachussetts in the USA, and from Japan. There is no substitute for the advantage gained from having world-class research facilities and researchers located within easy access. Thirty years ago, Kerala may not have had the business capital and transportation access in the state to justify having such an institution. But today the story is very different. Kerala has excellent international airports, as well as world-class businessmen and the capital to put the best ideas developed here, to the best use.
Improvement in Higher Education System: Establishing an IIT in Kerala will give a big boost to the higher education scene in Kerala. The first change is in seriousness and professionalism. IIT students and faculty take education very seriously, and consider themselves to be competing or at least benchmarking not against the best in their home town but the best in the entire world. The first and most stunning impact that an IIT has on a new student from a small town or village is the experience of being surrounded by the best in India (and the world), and realizing that one has to perform at a level that is far different from what was sufficient in one’s previous school. In the old days, telephones, transportation and money were more difficult to access, so that there was no way to turn around and call for help or run back home, and merit was the only way to get good grades from IIT professors. Even today it remains true that one has no one to turn to except oneself to make the necessary changes to one’s discipline and level of effort. This basic difference in mindset brings several positive changes. To begin with we will have an institution with a global brand to which we can look up with pride. The flexibility for frequent course restructuring depending upon the current needs is the most advantages point in the IIT system. As IITs are networked with engineering colleges under a Quality Improvement Programme, they will boost the quality of teachers in engineering colleges all over the state. The engineering college teachers in Kerala will get a chance to carry out research in their institution in collaboration with IIT even while carrying out their normal teaching at their parent institute. The qualifications and quality of these teachers can thus be improved. With a few exceptions, at present there is a lack of qualified teachers in almost all the engineering colleges in Kerala. In addition, the presence of an IIT would help engineering colleges of the state to get better higher education by enrolling their teachers in the masters and Ph.D programs under various categories such as part-time, self financed, and sponsored candidates.
The Government of India is promoting the creation of increased collaboration between IITs and local industries as well as supporting the creation of industrial innovation units. Both of these give a boost to the industrial scene in Kerala in the Information Technology (IT) and manufacturing arenas. Most IITs also run specialized programmes for state services, such as pollution control boards, which also will result in capacity building in the state.
Socio-Economic Development: The above development in higher education will in turn strengthen Kerala's plan for creating a good industrial climate in the state. The higher education system especially plays a major role in economic growth and it is an indicator of the prosperity of a nation. Scientific and technical education is critical to India’s aspirations as a leader in the global knowledge economy and in social development. Having an IIT in Kerala helps the state to play an active role in national development. Kerala will definitely emerge as a preferred destination for quality education and research in the global map due to its natural beauty and geographical location.
An IIT in Kerala will naturally increase the number of young Keralites who will get into the IITs. This is so because the presence of an IIT in Kerala, and possibly having an opportunity to visit it or hear more about it will prompt more youngsters to work harder to get into the
IITs. Some students, especially from economically backward families, will find it more financially manageable if the IIT is in Kerala than in a distant place. Finally, women students, who are at least equally represented among the top rankers in mathematics and science in Kerala’s high schools, will find more opportunities to get the unique advantages of an IIT education because parents will find it much easier if they are attending an IIT inside Kerala.
IIT is currently a global brand in academic excellence and presence of an IIT in Kerala will act as a magnet to attract investment in high-tech industry to Kerala in the long run. It is well known around the world that when there is a critical mass of research activities, bright young people and atmosphere conducive to entrepreneurial activity, high tech industry will prosper in that area. While NIT, CUSAT and IISER all can contribute to forming that critical mass, only IIT can bring the global brand in terms of technology. So, if Kerala aspire to move into the big league in being the preferred destination for new generation of industries, we must have an IIT. The best technological institutions in the world today, all have highly successful “industry incubators” located on campus, to develop their ideas into competitive, well-paying enterprises.
General Impacts: Looking at a wider perspective, one has to accept that IIT is not just an educational institution imparting education. It also provides service to the society. Apart from teaching, the faculty members are continuously involved in research. University research is critically important because it
• is of strategic importance for the nation,
• contributes to the growth of the Indian industries,
• helps the local society by finding solutions to their needs,
• disseminates technology for the upliftment of the rural sector,
• provides consultancy services to industries and finally
• leads directly to the creation of innovative, leading-edge enterprises.
In India today, research projects train and employ a large number of technically qualified personnel. Working in these projects, qualified students from the local area get admission to M.Tech and Ph.D programs thereby they are able to pursue their higher education. Though there is no regional reservation for the candidates to take part in these activities, simple statistical data analysis would reveal that the candidates from the particular state hosting a particular IIT is benefited maximum due to the geographical location. The above features are true of any research, but the critical advantages of a world-class research program are yet to be realized in most of India, where research projects appear to make improvements to what is already being done elsewhere. One only has to wonder why the strongest and most innovative military and the most lucrative early years of new industries, always seem to come from places that invest in leading edge research.
3. STEPS TO BE TAKEN BY KERALA GOVERNMENT TO BRING AN IIT
There are few key things the state Government should consider while making an effort to bring an IIT in Kerala. In fact, a planned strategy is required. The key points to be emphasised are:
i. Availability of Land
ii. Location of the Institute
iii. Future of the Institute
Dr. Anil Kakodkar’s Committee has given certain guidelines to MHRD to start new IITs. The Committee clearly specified in recommendations that the objective should be "to add more quality IIT" rather than just another IIT. The objective should not be to duplicate an existing IIT but to establish institutions that will bring to the table something new that the established IITs could not do. More care and attention in planning is emphasised in the recommendations.
The first and foremost recommendation is identifying the site. The Committee mentioned that "The site should be near to an industrial area and or complementary educational institutions with good access including an airport." This Committee reemphasis this point.
Generally, an IIT requires about 500 acres of land in a single location as specified in the above para. It is not a difficult task for any state to acquire this much land for establishing an IIT. Location is most important in many aspects such as
i. Fast development of the institute
ii. Industry-academy interaction
iii. Collaboration between like-minded institutions
iv. Attracting the best faculty to the institute.
An institute starting in the outskirts of a city with good infrastructure, connectivity and industrial presence would give a boost to the development of the institute. The state Government will have to take a proactive stand in acquiring land without giving any preferences which are of a political, regional or personal nature. The goal should be to bring an IIT to Kerala. Hence we suggest the name as "IIT Kerala" like IIT Rajasthan. It should be an IIT for every Keralite. A new IIT should not be under the clutches of an existing IIT, but rather under a visionary Director with a team of dedicated task force that can make a difference. The best example is IIT Guwahati which came to existence in the midst of political unrest in one of the most remote and industrially undeveloped region of India. Looking in to its contribution in terms of development of the region, rural sector, educating the teachers of the region, industrial growth, human resource development, technology incubation centre, etc., IIT Guwahati within 15 years, has emerged as an institute which is on
par with the older IITs that were established around 40 years ago. Probably we should explore this aspect to make IIT Kerala as a world-class institute.
5. CONCLUSION
The time is ripe for the intelligentsia and politicians to make a determined push to get an IIT in Kerala. Almost all major states have one and there is no more serious competition. Secondly, there has been no time in Independent India’s history when Kerala had so much clout in Delhi in both political and administrative circles. Finally, the political constellations between the Centre, the State and the HRD ministries in both, are most favourably aligned. The Committee recommends that the state government should act quickly but with a determined and pragmatic approach keeping in mind that the state should receive the maximum benefit from this opportunity.

Narayanan More Credible than Roemer
By T.P.Sreenivasan
Former National Security Adviser and present Governor of West Bengal, M.K.Narayanan had barely taken off from Thiruvananthapuram after honouring Ambassador Nirupama Menon Rao with the Sree Chithira Thirunal award for outstanding achievements, when the news broke out about the latest Wikileaks revelations. The report was that Narayanan had indicated to the then US Ambassador, Timothy Roemer, that India was not serious about the demand for extradition of David Headley. In a cable to the State Department in December 2009, Roemer said that Narayanan had suggested to him that the Government was not actually keen on the extradition issue, but wanted to be seen to be insisting on it. According to Roemer, Narayanan told him that “it was difficult not to be making the effort” but the Government was not seeking extradition “at this time”.
Roemer was apparently trying to convince Delhi that the threat of extradition to India could cause Headley’s cooperation to dry up, but that by allowing the judicial process to continue, more information could be obtained and passed on to India. He claimed that Narayanan showed understanding of the American position. Certain sections of the press and the opposition rushed to the conclusion that the Government was guilty of doubletalk and that it was never serious about bringing Headley to book.
Narayanan told the press in unequivocal terms that India had always been serious about Headley’s extradition and he did not convey anything contrary to Roemer. As for the correspondence between Roemer and the State Department, the questions should be addressed to the Americans, he said. This should have ended the speculation, but the talking heads on national and regional television channels continued to speculate over the conversation, seeking to find motives of both sides. Asked about the wording of the leaked cable and Narayanan’s response, I said on television that it was a matter of Narayanan’s words against Roemer’s and that we should give greater credence to Narayanan than to Roemer. My reasoning was simply that Narayanan had nothing to gain by misrepresenting the Indian position to Roemer, while the latter had to impress upon his Government that his demarche on the phone was very effective. Ambassadors are known to write their cables in a way that pleases their masters back home. These are not recorded conversations, but first person accounts from memory, which could lead to wrong interpretations in cold print. As long as there is no change in policy and the Americans are as keen on finding the truth as we are, there is no cause for concern.
Apart from the embarrassment that this cable has caused, Wikileaks have caused considerable damage to diplomacy as a profession not only in the US, but also worldwide. Diplomats should have the facility to convey information and opinions to their Governments without any fear of their getting into unauthorized hands. Much of international diplomacy is conducted in unofficial conversations over a cup of coffee or a glass of wine or a meal. There will be no note takers or pieces of paper so that diplomats can explore different ideas without being held to any specific positions. But even informal conversations have to be reported home as policy inputs. The fear that these communications will come out in the open will inhibit diplomats from engaging in these conversations, which are the life blood of diplomacy.
As for the US diplomats, the damage is even more as people around the world will be reluctant to confide in them. Surprisingly, very few American ambassadors have lost their jobs on account of the embarrassment of Wikileaks, but many careers may have been affected by the indiscretions that these cables have revealed. If Jyoti Basu or Pinarayi Vijayan, the hard core communists and US baiters felt confident about sharing their thoughts with US diplomats, that was because the feeling that their conversations would remain confidential. Wikileaks must have closed those windows of opportunity forever.
The furor that a meeting that some of the communist leaders had with the US Consul General in Chennai and his Political Counsellor was amazing as it is no secret that at least three Ministers of the former LDF Government in Kerala had taken missions to the US with the specific purpose of seeking investment and other kinds of cooperation at the very time when their leaders were opposing the nuclear deal and soon thereafter. Perhaps, the factional fights within the Communist Party in Kerala may have fuelled the fire because the ideologue, V.S.Achuthanandan was clearly hostile to the US officials while the Party boss, Pinarayi Vijayan not only solicited direct investment, but also played down the agitation against Coca Cola as a local problem in the area it was held. The Party had even opposed the appointment of someone, who was on the Board of Coca Cola as a member of the State Planning Board. The Wikileaks cable noted this divide in the Party.
Even more importantly, the Kerala Wikileaks revealed that two Ministers confided in the Americans that there was a Muslim fundamentalist menace in Kerala and that foreign funding was available to them. A Minister in the current Government was accused of having been supportive of such groups for political reasons. The Americans must have been very attentive to such allegations as they were looking for clues around the globe about the spread of terrorism. All concerned have denied that they had said such things to the Americans, but, as it happens, the Americans seemed to have greater credibility with the public than our politicians. Funnily enough, the very politicians, who were dismissing Wikileaks as American lies, had no qualms about quoting the same Wikileaks to score points over their opponents.
With all the problems that Wikileaks unleashed, the silver lining was that no Indian diplomat or senior official was caught saying anything improper to the Americans. Narayanan was no exception. Many of them, who were quoted in the cables, said nothing out of line with policy. Some of them were even frank and forthright with the Americans about US policy. But the politicians did not come out so well as some of them appeared to show off their influence or knowledge even to junior US diplomats.
Wikileaks came like the sun rising at midnight or someone peeping into the makeup room of a play behind the stage. They revealed some of the raw material which goes into diplomacy, which is rarely seen during the day or on the stage. But such raw material too is an essential ingredient of international intercourse and it should be seen as such. But what matters is what the nations do in the daylight and the actors do on the stage. Modern technology has affected all professions and diplomacy cannot escape it, however conservative that profession may like to remain. But it will be a pity if Wikileaks rob diplomats of their ability to engage in informal discussions and to convey their assessments to their Governments without fear of being exposed.

India-US Defence Co-operation.

T.P.Sreenivasan

(Lecture at the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam. Aug 24, 2011)

I have seen the days, not long ago, even after the cold war, when India and the United States virtually had no defence co-operation at all. I had spent a year in Washington as a senior Indian diplomat without ever entering the portals of the Pentagon. I remember spending the first few weeks in Washington to rescue a nominal Defence Policy Group, which had got embroiled in some protocol problems. The first time I stepped into the Pentagon was after our nuclear tests of 1998 when we were invited for a briefing on nuclear weapons command and control. The purpose of the briefing appeared to be to show how complex, complicated and hazardous the upkeep of nuclear weapons could be.

Needless to say, India’s dependence on the Soviet Union for most of its military hardware and the perceived Indian tilt towards Eastern Europe was the reason for the lack of any defence cooperation during the cold war days. More than any ideological obsessions, what drove India into a Soviet arms embrace were the rupee payment arrangements, lower prices and manufacturing licenses. That legacy, further complicated by the US entanglement with Pakistan, continued well into the early twenty-first century.

India has, however, been a user of US defence equipment since the 1960s. The massive shipment of US arms following the Chinese aggression of 1962 cannot be forgotten. Subsequently, the US made several proposals in 1984, 1987, 1991 and 1995 and India was not unresponsive to them. These were mainly of commercial in nature and they had no strategic underpinnings. Differences over the NPT and CTBT and the nuclear tests of 1998 complicated matters. It was only when the Bush Administration recognized India’s potential as an emerging power in Asia and engaged in a genuine dialogue on cooperative security issues that defence cooperation, in the strategic sense, was ever considered.

We have come a long way since then. Today, it makes world headlines when India decides not to purchase a particular aircraft from the United States. It is no news at all when India and the United States stage joint exercises in the Indian Ocean. Indian defence officials, including the Defence Minister himself, make working visits to Washington and the top brass of the US army are seen in the corridors of the South Block round the year.

The changes in strategic thinking in the US and India culminated in the signing in June 2005 of a bilateral Framework Defence Agreement just before the announcement of the nuclear deal. The commotion in the two countries over the nuclear deal eclipsed the Defence Agreement, which looked like a purely commercial deal, but today the Defence Agreement has assumed greater significance than the nuclear deal in terms of mutually beneficial cooperation between the US and India. It also has great implications for India’s standing in its tough neighbourhood and in the world.
We should recognize that there is a fundamental disconnect between the aspirations of the US and India in fostering defence cooperation. The US envisages India as a partner in their own scheme of things in Asia, friendly to US interests and balancing China in the long term. The US would like India to be its partner in the Indian Ocean region to address regional contingencies. The US is seeking collaboration in “multinational operations of common interest”, ranging from humanitarian and disaster relief activities to interdictions and even a “coalition of the willing” in the absence of a UN mandate. India, on the other hand, is seeking to have high technology to equip itself to strengthen its defences, without mortgaging itself to another power. We are looking for commercial deals with no strings attached. We would also like to have licenses to manufacture these weapons in India to avoid the vagaries of supplies at crucial moments. In other words, India wants arms length cooperation as opposed to integrated defence links.

The divergent views of the two countries on the ultimate objective of defence cooperation have led to India holding back from some of the links necessary for smooth defence dealings between the two countries. For instance, even after ten years of consideration, India has not posted a mid level officer on a permanent basis to the US Pacific Command. We do not allow unsupervised contacts between the armed forces. Even after joint exercises, India has not signed a Memorandum of Agreement for Tactical Communications System Interoperability. Though a navy to navy fuel arrangement was in place during the Malabar series of exercises, India has stepped back from a Mutual Logistic Support Agreement.

Though the US arms sales to India and joint military exercises have proceeded, India has been reluctant to sign some of these agreements that the US considers necessary to safeguard the technology transferred through these sales and to ensure that the arms are not used against the interests of the United States. But in July 2009, the two countries announced in New Delhi that they had agreed on an “end-use monitoring” arrangement that would provide safeguards for the sale of sophisticated US weaponry to India. The arrangement was for a provision to be written into future defence contracts, guaranteeing that sensitive equipment will be used for its intended purpose and not transferred to a third party.

The list of defence equipment India has imported since 2002, which is available in the public domain, is really impressive, given the reservation that India has about a strategic involvement with the US. These include counter battery radars, an amphibious transport dock along with 6 helicopters, C130 transport planes, 24 Harpoon Block II missiles, C17 Heavy transport planes, P-8 maritime reconnaissance aircraft, VVIP planes equipped with advanced electronic warfare suites and others. Other orders for attack helicopters and light howitzers are on the anvil.

India’s decision in April 2011 to eliminate the top two US contenders from its short list of suppliers for the Indian Air Force’s fourth generation of advanced combat aircraft came as a rude shock to the United States. American officials and many analysts had given the impression that this was a done deal for the US, not only because of the suitability of the aircraft for Indian conditions, but also because it was seen as a reward for the nuclear deal. With the adoption of the nuclear liability law, it became clear that the nuclear trade that was envisaged in the nuclear deal would not materialize in the near future. In fact, there is a school of thought in Washington that the US should not sell nuclear reactors or material to India as long as India stood outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Instead, Washington should press for more defence deals from India. The US leadership, including President Obama himself, lobbied for the aircraft order at all levels and made it clear that the order would be a demonstration of India’s readiness to give substance to its strategic partnership with the US. The US sought the contract at the technical as well as at the political level.

The disappointment over India’s decision to exclude the US aircraft from consideration received disproportionate attention in the US and the Indian action was portrayed as a negative signal on the strategic relationship. The sudden resignation of the US Ambassador Timothy Roemer was also linked to the failure of the US to bag the contract, for which he himself had staked his personal prestige and influence. “India has bought a plane, not a relationship”, screamed the headlines, as though this deal alone would have ensured perpetual friendship, while the other defence deals were ignored as insignificant. India has taken the position that the decision was purely technical in nature, though it was known that, among other things, India was hesitant to put all our aircraft eggs into the US basket. Pakistan had already obtained fighter aircraft from the US and it was considered imprudent to acquire the same aircraft for our fleet. At the same time, India signaled its disinclination to upgrade the strategic dialogue to a joint 2+2 (foreign and defence ministers) format, as the US has with Japan, in turn, leading to postponement of the Strategic Dialogue.

The matter of the aircraft deal was set aside by the time Secretary Hillary Clinton visited India for the second Strategic dialogue, but the shadow of the aircraft deal and the nuclear liability law cast a shadow on the conversations she had with the Indian Minister of External affairs. The decision of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to strengthen the guidelines on transfer of reprocessing and enrichment technology also led to a war of words.

After a period of extraordinary warmth during the days of the nuclear deal, India-US relations have moved to a more realistic level, with suspicions on the Indian side and disappointments on the US side showing up. Those who have witnessed the roller-coaster nature of the history of India-US relations will not be surprised by these developments. A stable strategic relationship can be built only on mutual trust and identification of a common strategic agenda. The time for it has not yet come and both the countries need to strive for it.
Thank you.

Distinguished Lecture Series on Indian Foreign Policy by the Public Diplomacy Division of the Ministry of External Affairs. Goa University, August 17, 2011
India’s Quest for a Permanent Seat on the UN Security Council
By T.P.Sreenivasan
I am grateful to the Goa University and the Public Diplomacy Division of the Ministry of External Affairs for inviting me to deliver a lecture in the Distinguished Lecture Series on India’s Quest for a Permanent Seat on the UN Security Council. Public Diplomacy is fairly new to India, but it has spread its wings far and wide and has made a tremendous impact. I am delighted to be part of its effort to bring the intricate aspects of diplomacy to a wide audience and to attract talent to diplomacy as a profession. I must state, however, that the views contained in my lecture are my own and I have had no official briefing. I shall rely on my own experience of either dealing with the issue or following it in the last 32 years.
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 192 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 66 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 a real change can be brought about by the provisions of the very Charter that established the institution. 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 General Satish Nambiar, the 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 is afoot by the G-4 to introduce a resolution to decide that both permanent and non-permanent membership will be expanded, but its fate is uncertain.
The story so far of our quest for a permanent seat on the Security Council is “Kabhi Khushi, Kabhie Ghum” (Joy sometimes, despair at other times), as Ambassador Hardeep Puri described it, drawing inspiration from a Bollywood movie of that name. In fact, there is more despair than joy in that saga. The only reason for joy 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. As of now, there is no formula for expansion which can command consensus or even secure two thirds majority of the General Assembly, including the support of the 5 permanent members.
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. No group, outside the G-4, is actively campaigning for a formula. The African Group differs significantly from G-4 because of their insistence on the veto and an additional non-permanent member. Moreover, the idea of the African Group is to rotate two permanent memberships within the Group, itself a contradiction. The Uniting for Consensus group wants to add only 10 new non-permanent members. This is an attractive proposition for a large number of small states, whose chances of serving on the Council will increase, while they have nothing to gain by adding new permanent members. In other words, the G-4 proposal for 6 new permanent members and 4 non-permanent members cannot as yet win a two thirds majority in the General Assembly, not to speak of the support of the P-5.
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. There is expectation, however, that President Obama might declare openness to a modest expansion of the Security Council at the next session of the General Assembly. But 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. A few days ago, our Minister of State for External Affairs indicated that both India and the US were actively involved in the ongoing negotiations.
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.
If I may go back to where I began, 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 joy even in the midst of despair.
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.
May I also say, without appearing to spurn the proverbial “sour grapes”, that permanent membership without veto is not such an attractive trophy that we should expend unlimited resources and energy on it. As a member of the Council, 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.