Author: CD Staff

Context

• Recently, the good governance week celebration came to an end. The week included the launching of several programs and initiatives related to good governance.
• In this context, this edition of the burning issue will elaborate on good governance and good governance week.

About Good Governance Week

• In 2014, the Government of India paid tribute to the former Prime Minister of India, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, by declaring his birthday (December 25) as ‘Good Governance Day’ – Susasan Divas.
• Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India celebrates Good Governance Week from 19-25 December every year.
• The decision to celebrate Good Governance Week (Sushasan Saptah) was taken by the government in the year of Amrit Mahotsav (75th Year of Independence) ie. 2021.
• During the week-long celebrations, various activities are taken up to demonstrate the government’s commitment to providing transparent, effective and accountable governance to the people of this country.

Good Governance Week 2022

• Good Governance Week (Sushasan Saptah) campaign “Prashasan Gaon Ki Aur” was launched during 20-25 December 2021 and it aimed at showcasing and replicating the best governance practices at the grassroots level. The campaign intended to create a national movement for good governance and motivate the stakeholders both in the government as well as outside the government.
• The Second Sushasan Saptah to be celebrated during 19th – 25th December 2022, aims at furthering Good Governance at every level in India. As part of the celebrations, a 5-day “Prashasan Gaon ki Ore campaign” is to be organised from 19th December 2022.
• The Nationwide campaign for the Redressal of Public Grievances and Improving Service Delivery will be held in all Districts, States and Union Territories of India. Over 700 District Collectors will be participating in the Campaign and officials will be visiting Tehsils and Panchayat Samiti Headquarters.
• District Collectors have also identified 81,27,944 applications for Service Delivery to be disposed of, along with 19,48,122 Public Grievances to be redressed in State Grievance Portals.
• This is the second time in Amrit Kaal Period, that the Government of India will be conducting a National Campaign at Tehsil level to address Public Grievances and Improving Service Delivery. Prashasan Gaon ki Ore Abhiyaan will create a national movement for good governance that will inspire future generations.
• 373 Best Good Governance Practices have been identified for discussion in District Level Workshops on December 23, 2022. 43 Success Stories in Public Grievances will also be shared during the Good Governance Week-2022.
• 3,120 New Services identified by District Collectors across the country will be added for Online Service Delivery.

What does Good Governance mean?

• Governance refers to all processes of governing, the institutions, processes and practices through which issues of common concern are decided upon and regulated.
• Good governance is the process of measuring how public institutions conduct public affairs and manage public resources and guarantee the realization of human rights in a manner essentially free of abuse and corruption and with due regard for the rule of law.
• While there is no internationally agreed definition of ‘good governance’, it may span the following topics: full respect of human rights, the rule of law, effective participation, multi-actor partnerships, political pluralism, transparent and accountable processes and institutions, an efficient and effective public sector, legitimacy, access to knowledge, information and education, political empowerment of people, equity, sustainability, and attitudes and values that foster responsibility, solidarity and tolerance.

Good Governance according to United Nations

The United Nations is playing an increasing role in good governance. According to former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, “Good governance is ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law; strengthening democracy; promoting transparency and capacity in public administration.” To implement this, the UN follows eight principles:

• Participation – People should be able to voice their own opinions through legitimate immediate organizations or representatives.
• Rule of Law – Legal framework should be enforced impartially, especially on human rights laws.
• Consensus Oriented – Mediates differing interests to meet the broad consensus on the best interests of a community.
• Equity and Inclusiveness – People should have opportunities to improve or maintain their well-being.
• Effectiveness and Efficiency – Processes and institutions should be able to produce results that meet the needs of their community while making the best of their resources.
• Accountability – Governmental institutions, private sectors, and civil society organizations should be held accountable to the public and institutional stakeholders.
• Transparency – Information should be accessible to the public and should be understandable and monitored.
• Responsiveness – Institutions and processes should serve all stakeholders.

Features of Good Governance

• Good education facilities offered by the government have greater employability,
• Development of basic infrastructures like roads, bridges, power, telecom, airport, irrigation and transport
• Safety of public life, property, peaceful law and order,
• Creating new employment opportunities in the government and private sectors, l Effectiveness and efficiency of working of government and its staffs,
• A good business environment with a free-market economy,
• Reducing inequalities in society through positive discrimination in favor of the poorest of the poor l Providing total freedom of speech, of religion, of work and attitude of non-interference by government.
• Provision of more concessions to citizens and free from bias,
• Good business environment and l Citizen centric services.

Good Governance in India

• The concept of “Good governance” is relatively a new term which has come to the limelight in the 1990s; however, the principle of good governance is not new to Indian society.
• While throwing attention over the state of affairs in ancient India, it is noticed that the king or the ruler was bounded by the dharma which was precisely meant to ensure the good governance for the people. “Rajadharma” was the code of conduct or the rule of law which was superior to the will of the ruler.
• Even in the great epics like Mahabharat and Ramayana, the rulers abide by the principles of good governance which are more often cited on many occasions.
• In India, the concept was talked about in the Arthashastra, authored by Chanakya. He mentions the characteristics of a good king thus, “In the happiness of his subjects lies his happiness, in their welfare his welfare; whatever pleases himself, he does not consider as good, but whatever pleases his subjects he considers as good.”
• Mahatma Gandhi advocated the concept ‘Ram Rajya’ for India based upon the principles of good governance which necessarily meant dreaming of India as a welfare state where the necessities of the down-trodden, the welfare of the commoner and their progress through indigenous industries would become the hallmark.
• The Constitution of India also embodies the concept the good governance through its list of Fundamental Rights of the citizens and Directive Principle of State Policy.

Good Governance Initiatives in India

• Public service guarantee act: The public service guarantee act is also known as the Right to Public Services Act in some states. It provides for legislation and statutory laws that guarantee time-bound delivery of services by the government to the citizen and provides a mechanism for punishing the errant public servant who fails to provide the service stipulated under the statute, within the stipulated time. Madhya Pradesh was the first state to enact the Right to Service Act on 18th August 2010 and Bihar became the second state to implement it on 25th July 2011.
• Citizen’s Charter: is a non-agency device for people’s participation. It is a document representing an effort to focus on the commitment of public organisations toward their clients/citizens. The Sevottam model is designed as an assessment tool by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) in 2006. SEVOTTAM is the ‘Nine Criteria Model for Citizen Centricity’, meaning Uttam Seva or excellence in service delivery.
• Right to Information: has emerged as a prominent concern in the field of public administration. Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution includes the Right to Information. Right to Information opens up the government’s records to public scrutiny, thereby arming citizens with a vital tool to inform them about what the government does and how effectively; thereby making the government more accountable.
• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): a governance-centric approach to citizen’s welfare, is an obligation on the part of the corporates to act in a manner that will serve the best interests of the society. The enactment of Section 135 of the Companies Act 2013 made CSR spending and reporting mandatory for the first time and brought CSR initiatives of Indian corporates under the purview of corporate law.
• Good Governance Index: The Good Governance Index Was launched on the occasion of Good Governance Day on 25 December 2019. The Good Governance Index is a uniform tool across States to assess the Status of Governance and the impact of various interventions taken up by the State Government and Union Territories.
• Some other notable initiatives: that enable better governance include the MyGov citizen engagement platform, MEITY’s e-governance platform, Digital India, Niti Aayog’s Aspirational Districts,

Challenges to Good Governance in India

• Corruption: Corruption has virtually spread in almost all aspects of public life. It not only averts the benefits of globalization to reach the common man but also denies transparency, accessibility and accountability, confuses rules and procedures, and proliferate mindless control and poor commitments at all levels. Hence,
• The criminalization of Politics: The nexus of crime and politics is so strong that the common citizens of the country have no stand to say or exert their rights. In order to prevent such misuses on May 2, 2002, the Supreme Court of India has given a historic judgment following the public interest litigation (PIL) led by an NGO that, every candidate contesting an election to Parliament, State Legislatures or Municipal Corporations has to give true declarations of candidate’s educational qualifications, criminal charges and financial records.
• Judicial delays: The most severe challenge relates to the complexity of adjudication as legal proceedings are lengthy and costly and the judiciary lacks personnel and logistics to deal with these matters.
• Weak accountability mechanism: The general weakness of accountability mechanisms impedes improving services across the board. Bureaucratic complexities and procedures make it difficult for a citizen as well as civil society to navigate the system for timely and quality delivery of services.
• The lack of transparency and secrecy: that have been associated with the administrative system from colonial times, besides generating corruption, has also led to injustice and favoritism.
• The frequent transfer of key civil servants: has enormously contributed to failures in the delivery of services. In some states, the average tenure of a District Magistrate is less than one year. Development projects have also suffered as a result of frequent changes in project directors.

Way forward

• The step is to evolve from an “application-based right to access information” to “public information being automatically shared on a public platform” using technology. 
• Inclusion of the public: Good governance is not created solely by the government. Every stakeholder has an equal role in achieving it. There is a need for greater accountability of any action/decision taken within the public domain. Inclusion will also make sure that well-intentioned government programs and policies do not stray from their intent. The need of the hour is to have stakeholder consensus in the government’s policies and projects. Any program being implemented must be outcome-oriented and achieved through larger stakeholder consensus building.
• Regular monitoring of government schemes: All government schemes should be regularly monitored and evaluated by an independent (third) party, to ensure successful implementation, provide last-mile delivery, and give an unbiased view. This conforms with the global standards established by the UN, World Bank and others.
• Consolidation of multiple redundant ministries: and overlapping schemes should be initiated, to streamline operations, improve efficiency and outcomes for better public service delivery, thereby improving the return on public investment.
• To ameliorate criminalization from politics: It is necessary to ameliorate criminalization from politics and the seriousness of the matter should be properly worked out. Educated youngsters should be encouraged to enter into Indian politics and these young leaders should be properly nourished by patriotic commitments and abide by the core principles of democratic governance.
• Check corruption: There is a foremost need to check corruption at all levels by raising public consciousness and strong commitments not to make dishonest compromises that would put down the moral values and ethics of life.

Conclusion

• Observing Good Governance Day (December 25) will continuously remind us that the ruling government should be development oriented, inclusive, yet forward-looking and global in its approach. It is only with good governance, that Gandhiji’s vision of creating a strong and prosperous India shall be enabled and fulfilled. 

Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

(Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

Context

• The United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP15) ended in Montreal, Canada, on 19 December 2022 with a landmark agreement to guide global action on nature through to 2030.
• Chaired by China and hosted by Canada, COP 15 resulted in the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) on the last day of negotiations. 
• In this context, this edition of the burning issue will tell about the agreement in detail.

About Convention on Biodiversity (CBD)

• The CBD known informally as the Biodiversity Convention is a multilateral treaty having its origin at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
• The convention has three main goals: the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components, the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources.
• Its objective is to develop national strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, and it is often seen as the key document regarding sustainable development.
• It has two supplementary agreements, the Cartagena Protocol and Nagoya Protocol.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)

Need of the Agreement

• Dangerous decline in nature: The stakes could not be higher: the planet is experiencing a dangerous decline in nature as a result of human activity. It is experiencing its largest loss of lives since dinosaurs. One million plant and animal species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades.
• Failure of Aichi targets: The targets are ambitious, considering that biodiversity is in a poor state. In 2020, the world failed to meet the last set of targets, the Aichi Targets. Countries would need to ensure success this time around.

Aim

• The GBF aims to: Address biodiversity loss, restore ecosystems and protect indigenous rights. The plan includes concrete measures to halt and reverse nature loss, including putting 30 per cent of the planet and 30 per cent of degraded ecosystems under protection by 2030. It also contains proposals to increase finance to developing countries – a major sticking point during talks.

Goals

• The GBF consists of four overarching global goals: to protect nature, including halting human-induced extinction of threatened species and reducing the rate of extinction of all species tenfold by 2050; sustainable use and management of biodiversity to ensure that nature’s contributions to people are valued, maintained and enhanced; fair sharing of the benefits from the utilization of genetic resources, and digital sequence information on genetic resources; and that adequate means of implementing the GBF be accessible to all Parties, particularly Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States.

Targets

The GBF also features 23 targets to achieve by 2030, including:

• Effective conservation and management of at least 30 per cent of the world’s land, coastal areas and oceans. Currently, 17 percent of land and *8 per cent of marine areas are under protection.
• Restoration of 30 per cent of terrestrial and marine ecosystems
• Reduce to near zero the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance and high ecological integrity
• Halving global food waste
• Phasing out or reforming subsidies that harm biodiversity by at least $500 billion per year, while scaling up positive incentives for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use
• Mobilizing at least $200 billion per year from public and private sources for biodiversity-related funding
• Raising international financial flows from developed to developing countries to at least US$ 30 billion per year
• Requiring transnational companies and financial institutions to monitor, assess, and transparently disclose risks and impacts on biodiversity through their operations, portfolios, supply and value chains

Reporting of the Outcomes

• The countries will monitor and report every five years or less on a large set of indicators related to progress. The CBD will combine national information submitted by late February 2026 and late June 2029 into global trends and progress reports.

Creation of a dedicated fund

• The Global Environment Facility has been requested to establish a Special Trust Fund to support the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework (“GBF Fund”). This is to ensure successful implementation.
• Delegates have agreed to establish within the GBF a multilateral fund for the equitable sharing of benefits between providers and users of digital sequence information on genetic resources (DSI), to be finalized at COP16 in Türkiye in 2024.

Key outcomes of the Agreement

[A] 30×30 Target

• Delegates committed to protecting 30% of land and 30% of coastal and marine areas by 2030, fulfilling the deal’s highest-profile goal, known as 30-by-30.
• Currently, 17% of terrestrial and 10% of marine areas are protected.
• Indigenous and traditional territories will also count toward this goal, as many countries and campaigners pushed for during the talks.
• The deal also aspires to restore 30% of degraded lands and waters throughout the decade, up from an earlier aim of 20%.
• And the world will strive to prevent destroying intact landscapes and areas with a lot of species, bringing those losses “close to zero by 2030”.

[B] Money for nature

• Signatories aim to ensure $200 billion per year is channeled to conservation initiatives, from public and private sources.
• Wealthier countries should contribute at least $20 billion of this every year by 2025, and at least $30 billion a year by 2030.

[C] Big companies report impacts on biodiversity

• Companies should analyse and report how their operations affect and are affected by biodiversity issues.
• The parties agreed to large companies and financial institutions being subject to “requirements” to make disclosures regarding their operations, supply chains and portfolios.
• This reporting is intended to progressively promote biodiversity, reduce the risks posed to businesses by the natural world, and encourage sustainable production.

[D] Harmful subsidies

• Countries committed to identifying subsidies that deplete biodiversity by 2025, and then eliminating, phasing out or reforming them.
• They agreed to slash those incentives by at least $500 billion a year by 2030, and increase incentives that are positive for conservation.

[E] Pollution and pesticides

• One of the deal’s more controversial targets sought to reduce the use of pesticides by up to two-thirds.
• But the final language to emerge focuses on the risks associated with pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals instead, pledging to reduce those threats by “at least half”, and instead focusing on other forms of pest management.
• Overall, the Kunming-Montreal agreement will focus on reducing the negative impacts of pollution to levels that are not considered harmful to nature, but the text provides no quantifiable target here.

[F] Monitoring and reporting progress

• All the agreed aims will be supported by processes to monitor progress in the future, in a bid to prevent this agreement from meeting the same fate as similar targets that were agreed upon in Aichi, Japan, in 2010, and never met.
• National action plans will be set and reviewed, following a similar format used for greenhouse gas emissions under U.N.-led efforts to curb climate change.
• Some observers objected to the lack of a deadline for countries to submit these plans.

India’s presence at the Conference

• India was represented at the conference by Union Environment Minister Mr. Bhupendra Yadav.
• India mainly put forward the arguments for supporting the case of developing countries and suggested for the creation of a biodiversity fund to help developing countries successfully implement the global framework.
• India also called for the application of the ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities’ (CBDR) principle while deciding the responsibilities of different countries as the developing countries bear most of the burden of climate change and, therefore, require adequate funding and technology transfer.

Few concerns with the agreement

• Activist organization Avaaz has pointed out that Goal A does not contain the 2030 milestones and enough numerical values anymore. This would make it difficult to assess whether or not the GBF leads to positive impacts on ecosystems. 
• Avaaz also said there was still an imbalance between the amounts pledged in the text and real needs.
• The framework text has indicated that the resources needed are up to $700 billion per year but the flows will be increased only to $200 billion per year by 2030. Avaaz said the framework should specify how this gap will be closed.  
• There is now consensus that $200 billion will be made available every year from all sources by 2030. However, it is not clear how this funding would be disbursed. Some Parties favour the establishment of a stand-alone fund outside the existing funding structure while others want to improve the existing funding mechanisms.
• Also, India’s Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav said that a numerical global target for pesticide reduction in the agriculture sector is unnecessary and must be left for countries to decide. The agriculture sector in India, like other developing countries, is the source of “life, livelihoods, and culture for hundreds of millions,”.
• There is no 2030 target for increasing species population abundance. Some earlier drafts included details about enlarging the area of natural ecosystems by at least 5% by 2030, and these targets were removed.
• The term “nature positive”, which scientists had said would be the biodiversity equivalent of “net zero”, did not make the final document. Many will see this as a missed opportunity – a unifying idea similar to keeping global heating to within 1.5C.
• The main criticism of 30×30 (and other area-based conservation targets) is that implementing them risks violating human rights (original forest dwellers).

Conclusion

• This agreement means people around the world can hope for real progress to halt biodiversity loss and protect and restore our lands and seas in a way that safeguards our planet and respects the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

Context

• Three months after the last round of troop disengagement in eastern Ladakh signaling restoration of peace, soldiers from India and China clashed once again, this time in Arunachal Pradesh.
• This was contested by Indian troops firmly and resolutely. This face-off led to minor injuries to a few personnel from both sides.
• In this context, this edition of the burning issue will analyze the LAC standoffs between India and China.

Line of Actual Control Crisis- The Tawang Episode

• Soldiers of the two sides clashed in Yangtse, in the upper reaches of the Tawang sector in Arunachal Pradesh on December 9, 2022.
• PLA troops tried to transgress the LAC in Yangtse area of the Tawang Sector and unilaterally change the status quo.
• Within Tawang, there are three “agreed areas” of differing Indian and Chinese perceptions of the LAC. Yangtse, which is about 25 km from Tawang town, north of the Lungroo grazing ground, is one of these areas.
• As a result, it has been the site of regular “physical contact” between the Indian Army and the PLA, especially as the high ground is on the Indian side, giving it a commanding view of the Chinese side.
• Both sides immediately disengaged from the area. As a follow-up to the incident, the Indian Army commander in the area held a flag meeting with his counterpart to discuss the issue in accordance with structured mechanisms to restore peace and tranquillity.

Some previous LAC crisis incidents

• Depsang in Ladakh, 2013: Chinese troops came across the LAC, pitched tents and refused to move for several weeks until New Delhi threatened to cancel the planned visit of Premier Li Keqiang to India. This might have been a diplomatic victory for the Indian government but it also highlighted the inability of the Indian military to bring an end to the standoff or the unwillingness of the government to let the military take the lead in responding.
• Chumar in Ladakh, Sept 2014 in the middle of Xi Jinping’s first visit to India: Chinese intruded at Chumar, also in Ladakh, in the middle of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s first state visit to India. This was in keeping with a reasonably long tradition of Chinese transgressions during important visits but it was also notable for confronting Indian troops in an area where they enjoyed a degree of military advantage.
• Doklam in 2017: China provoked India with infrastructure development in a third country in Bhutan’s Doklam territory. This was a case of China trying to browbeat an Indian treaty ally.
• Transgression across multiple locations in 2020 and Galwan valley clash: The Chinese PLA took advantage of Covid-19 and a lack of Indian military alertness to transgress across multiple locations on the LAC in eastern Ladakh. On June 15, 2020 episode when 20 Indian soldiers were killed and several others were injured in violent clashes with the PLA troops in Ladakh’s Galwan Valley.

Reasons for these skirmishes

• Enforce own perception of LAC: The transgressions, patrol clashes, faceoffs and flag meetings to resolve it has been a common feature to dominate or enforce own claim or own perception of LAC China and will continue to be so till the LAC is demarcated.
• Difficult terrain: Rivers, lakes and snowcaps along the frontier mean the line can shift, bringing soldiers face to face at many points, sparking a confrontation.
• Competition to build infrastructure: The two nations are also competing to build infrastructure along the border, which is also known as the Line of Actual Control. India’s construction of a new road to a high-altitude air base is seen as one of the main triggers for a deadly 2020 clash with Chinese troops.
• Promote nationalism and divert attention: Chinese President Xi Jinping may be attempting to stoke nationalistic fervor out of his aggressive nationalistic stance by playing the victim card to divert domestic discontent due to the Zero Covid policy, downslide in the Chinese economy and other reasons.
• Increase financial cost for India: Unhappy with the fastest-growing economy, a faceoff in winter may activate political debate in democratic India, and the Indian government may be compelled to deploy more troops throughout winters in all sectors, thereby increasing the financial cost for India by LOCisation of LAC.
• India’s infrastructure development: China enjoyed gross asymmetry in infrastructure development in its favour for too long and is not comfortable with Indian effort to catch up in this regard; hence disruption in development activities along borders suits its design.

Other concerns in India-China Relation

• Belt Road Initiative: India has objected to this, since its inception on grounds of violating its sovereignty pointing to China Pakistan Economic Corridor.
• Non-reciprocal steps by China: India’s support to China on global issues has not led to Beijing’s reciprocation for instance. China opposed India’s permanent membership to UN Security Council and entry into NSG.
• High trade deficit: India faces a trade imbalance heavily in favor of China. In 2017-18, the trade deficit has gone wide to US$62.9 billion in China’s favor.
• Countering each other: China has expressed concerns about Indian military and economic activities in the disputed South China Sea. The same way India is also concerned about rising Chinese activities in the Indian Ocean.
• China’s strong strategic bilateral relations with Pakistan and other neighboring countries like Nepal and Myanmar are the cause of concern as these countries act as buffer states.

Possible solutions to LAC standoffs

• Be ready for all contingencies: With no de-escalation by the Chinese in sight, India should continue to be ready for all contingencies with similar deployment along LAC, in the coming months/years, including creating some more leverage, if the situation demands so.
• Prevent LOC-isation of LAC: The Indian aim should be not to concede Chinese attempt to redraw LAC, or LOC-isation of the LAC further.
• Be proactive in dealing with China: A change in mindset is required, from being reactive to being proactive with additional intelligence, surveillance and offensive capability to demonstrate the capacity to encroach into Chinese sensitive areas, in absence of which China has assumed no threat from India, with the freedom to encroach anywhere, at will.
• Pass a border defense law similar to China: If the Chinese have passed a Border Defence Law, India too should pass some laws to facilitate emphatic border construction and extend schemes under the Border Infrastructure Management Authority (BIMA) as near as the LAC as is practically feasible.
• Capacity building: India must continue capacity building in all domains, including the maritime domain, where Chinese vulnerable sea lines of communications can be threatened. Besides ongoing infrastructure development along borders, the scope of the Border Area Management Programme (BAMP) needs to be enhanced.

What are the options for India to learn from the past and see what lies ahead in India-China relations?

• Inevitable Race: The prevailing tension on the China-India border is a symptom of the broader strategic competition between the two Asian neighbors.
• Equal seriousness: Both sides should treat the military escalation along LAC with equal seriousness.
• Armed coexistence: Even after the resolution of the present standoff in eastern Ladakh, both sides may be in a prolonged period of armed coexistence as a new normal. As the forces on both sides are likely to be relatively balanced, it would be advantageous for both to return to the agreements and understandings from 1993 onward and improve upon them. Clarifying the LAC is a crucial step in this effort.
• Address trade imbalance: India has flagged the unsustainable trade imbalance at the front and center of the relationship, and this has gone unaddressed. China will need to work on resolving the trade deficit with India. At any rate, decoupling will happen selectively, in the same way, and for the same reasons that China is choosing to decouple from the United States. A balanced trade and economic relationship might lay a solid foundation for future relations, given the size of both economies.
• Dialogue is necessary: Better understanding of each other’s regional initiatives through open dialogue is important to build trust. The Indo-Pacific vision is as much a developmental necessity for India as the BRI may be to China. Part of building trust must be an open discussion on each other’s intentions in key regions South Asia and the northern Indian Ocean and East Asia and the western Pacific as well as respect for each other’s special positions in the western Pacific and northern Indian Oceans.
• Protect the core interest: The two sides would need to accommodate the legitimate interests of the other side on key partnerships: China’s with Pakistan and India’s with the United States. These may not be desirable, but in the current circumstances neither will give up its partners, and both India and China could talk through a modus vivendi on the red lines of concern.

EAM S. Jaishankar’s Suggestion to deal with China

• The External Affairs Minister suggested “Three Mutuals” and “Eight Broad Propositions” as a way forward for the relationship.
• Three mutuals
• Mutual Respect and Mutual Sensitivity to each other concerns and Mutual Interests to cooperate are the “determining factors” for India-China relations to grow.
• Eight Major propositions

• Adhering to commitment: The first proposition was that agreements already reached must be adhered to in their entirety, both in letter and in spirit.
• Respect for LAC: Both sides also needed to strictly observe and respect the LAC, and any attempt to unilaterally change the status quo was completely unacceptable.
• Maintaining peace and tranquillity: Peace and tranquillity in border areas were the basis for the development of the relationship in other domains. If that was disturbed, he said, the rest of the relationship would be too.
• Broader partnership: The fourth proposition was that while both remain committed to a multipolar world, they should recognize that a multipolar Asia was one of its essential constituents.
• Reciprocity: While each state had its interests, concerns and priorities, sensitivities to them could not be one-sided and relations were reciprocal. As rising powers, neither should ignore the other’s set of aspirations.
• Divergences management: While both sides had made a common cause on development and economic issues and common membership of plurilateral groups was a meeting point, there were divergences when it came to interests and aspirations.
• Civilizational ties: The last proposition was that as civilizational states, India and China must always take the long view.
• Cooperation and competition: Even before the events of 2020, the relationship had reflected a duality of cooperation and competition.

Conclusion

• The two countries are standing at a crossroads, and this might be the final chance to take the path to the coexistence of cooperation and competition. If not, a new phase of antagonistic rivalry may be starting, with the countries sliding into possible confrontation as the strategic periphery of China collides with the strategic backyard of India in the Indian Ocean region.
• Therefore, China and India should be “Good Neighbors, Good Friends,” as both countries are “important engines of the world economic growth.” By building on that theme, the two countries should “enhance dovetailing of the two countries’ development strategies” to build a “manufacturing partnership.”

Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

(Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more