Economic Highlights

New Delhi, 31 March 2025

Ganga Valley Sees Oil Boom

 GAME CHANGER IN ENERGY SECTOR?

By Shivaji Sarkar 

India, heavily reliant on imports for 87 percent of its oil needs, is now eyeing a potential energy revolution in its underexplored eastern basins. South Bengal, Bihar, and Eastern Uttar Pradesh are emerging as key oil hotspots, with untapped reserves that could reshape the region’s economy. The Oil and natural Gas Corporation (ONGC)’s exploration in Ballia and Samastipur spans 308 sq km, holding the promise of transforming some of India's most impoverished areas. 

The new oil and gas exploration in Bihar’sSamastipur and UP’s Ballia holds the potential to reshape India’s energy landscape. However, challenges in land acquisition remain, necessitating strong local support for seamless drilling operations. A commercial discovery here could unlock the entire Ganga Basin, spanning Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, for further oil exploration. 

Initial investments in the two explorations are likely to be about Rs 125 crore – Rs 85 crore for Ballia and Rs 35 crore for Samastipur.Explorations are on in Punjab-Haryana Ganga basin too. The study is being conducted in - Machhiwara, Samrala, Ludhiana East tehsils, Nawanshahr, Jalandhar, Gurdaspur, and Amritsar. 

The discovery at Ashoknagar, yielding high-quality crude superior to Bombay High, has positioned the Bengal Basin as India’s eighth commercially producing hydrocarbon zone. Meanwhile, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands hold vast untapped natural gas reserves, estimated at 610 million tonnes. With just 10 percent of India’s sedimentary basins currently under exploration, the country plans to expand this to 16 percent within a year—paving the way for a new era in domestic oil and gas production. 

The monetisation of the Ashoknagar-1 discovery has made the Bengal Basin India’s eighth commercially producing hydrocarbon zone, leading to its upgrade to a Category-I productive basin.With this, ONGC has discovered seven out of eight producing basins of the country.The seven basins discovered and put into production by ONGC are: Krishna-Godavari, Mumbai Offshore, Assam Shelf, Rajasthan, Cauvery, Assam-Arakan Fold Belt, and Cambay. 

India is on track to increase its exploration acreage to 1million square km by 2030, oil and gas yields are expected to increase significantly. The approval process for exploration and production activities in the petroleum industry has now been simplified, reducing 37 approval processes to just 18, of which nine are now available for self-certification. 

The new Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Amendment Bill in 2024,passedby the Rajya Sabha in December 2024, ensures policy stability for oil and gas producers, and enables single licence for all hydrocarbons. This opens up entry of private companies.The ONGC has signed a MoU with BP to explore collaboration in oil and gas projects in India and abroad. The partnership will focus on enhancing production, trading, and exploring new energy vectors. This collaboration aims to boost ONGC’s output, optimise management of fields, and create value in additional energy vectors such as carbon sequestration. 

India has witnessed a remarkable surge in petroleum product exports over the last decade. The country’s refining capacity, now exceeding 250 million metric tonnes per annum (MMTPA), has enabled it to cater to global markets. 

Key export destinations include South Asian, African, and European countries. The emphasis on export-oriented growth and establishing Special Economic Zones (SEZs) for refineries have further boosted this trend. Exports not only contribute to foreign exchange reserves but also enhance India’s stature as a global energy supplier. 

As of April 2021, India’s crude oil reserves were estimated at approximately 587.335 million metric tonnes, with the western offshore region holding the largest share, followed by Assam and Gujarat. The Bihar and UP discoveries add to the hope of the country’s hydrocarbon exploration efforts, promising long-term gains in energy production and economic growth. 

Through intense seismic surveys since 2016-17, the ONGC made 68 new discoveries and monetised 36. Key discoveries in Kutch, Saurashtra, West Bengal, and the KG Basin reinforced confidence in upgrading these basins to Category-I (Producing). 

It has identified 26 sedimentary basins, categorized into four groups by the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (DGH) based on their hydrocarbon prospectivity. To harness the country’s untapped oil and gas potential, ONGC is actively exploring reserves across 13 of these basins under the Nomination and New Exploration Licensing Policy (NELP) regimes. 

These basins include the Assam Shelf, Assam-Arakan Fold Belt, Cambay (including offshore), Cauvery (including offshore), Krishna-Godavari (including offshore), Mumbai Offshore, Rajasthan (Jaisalmer), Kutch Offshore, Mahanadi Offshore, Saurashtra Offshore, Himalayan Foreland, Bengal, and Vindhyan basins spread across Assam, Mizoram, Tripura, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal, and Madhya Pradesh. The basins extend along eastern and western coasts, strengthening domestic energy security. 

The exploration successes have strengthened India’s domestic hydrocarbon reserves. India is set to become a key driver of global oil demand by 2030, fuelled by economic growth, urbanization, and rising vehicle ownership. With the new finds India’s capacity in refinery is to reach 295 million tonne. Oil imports may rise to 5.6 million barrels. But for the new oil basins, output is to drop to 540,000 barrels a day. 

By 2035, domestic oil production is likely to rise but so are imports by an aspiring nation with larger activities. Though battery vehicle is being junked by US President Donald Trump, India continues with it. It too has heavy import liabilities in battery and other components. 

The ONGC produces 1.26 million barrels a day, 76 percent of this of high quality. India’s import dependence is rising, with the oil ministry telling the standing committee that the share of import in the volume of crude processed will increase to 91 per cent. Despite efforts to enhance energy efficiency, India’s growing energy needs will necessitate a balanced approach between exploration, imports, and refinery expansion. 

India’s energy demand is set to rise to 11 percent of global demand by 2040, positioning the country as a key player in the global oil and gas sector.Its crude oil imports rose to 179.3 million tonnes in April-December, from 173.7 million tonnes in the same period the previous year. Meanwhile, domestic oil production declined slightly to 21.6 million tonnes from 22 million tonnes, according to the latest data from the Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell (PPAC).Once the Gangetic Valley finds go for commercial production, the PPAC projection may have to be revised. India hopes to maintain balance in import and exports of petroleum products.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Spotlight

New Delhi, 29 March 2025

Greenland & Trump's “Forcing open doors’

By Dr. Ewa Fronczak

(Centre for International Relations, Poland) 

“For the sake of national security and freedom everywhere, the United States of America believes that it is absolutely necessary to possess and control Greenland,” with these words in December 2024, Donald Trump, the 47^thPresident of the United States, astonished not only Denmark (of which Greenland is an autonomous territory with its own government and parliament) but probably the rest of the world as well. Why now? Why Greenland? Is this just another of Trump’s arrogant announcements, or part of a deliberate strategy?

Trump, surprisingly for some, is not the only US President to have talked about buying Greenland. The idea first came up in the 1860s under Andrew Johnson. According to a government report entitled “Report on the Resources of Greenland and Iceland,” after buying Alaska from Tsarist Russia, the US State Department also considered taking over Greenland, and even Canada and Iceland. Although nothing came of the idea, interest in the world’s largest island and its natural resources did not diminish.

The following years showed that the sale of overseas lands by Denmark in modern times would not be unprecedented. In 1915, after the sinking of the Lustiania and the growing threat of German submarines in the Atlantic, the question of the US purchasing the Danish West Indies became a major issue in American foreign policy. US President Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State Robert Lansing feared that the German government might annex Denmark, in which case the Germans could also secure the Danish West Indies as a naval or submarine base from which to launch attacks on shipping in the Caribbean and Atlantic. Finally, in 1917, the Danish kingdom sold the Virgin Islands to the US, seeking to raise funds for economic investment in its impoverished Caribbean possessions. Thus, by paying $25 million in gold coins, Washington managed to protect the Panama Canal from foreign powers operating in the Caribbean.

The 1940s brought an important event in bilateral relations – after the German invasion of Denmark in 1941, the US signed a “Defense of Greenland” agreement with Denmark, which provided an American umbrella over the island and protected it from hostile interest in this strategic region. The agreement granted the US the right to build and access military bases on the island. The cryolite deposits there, then essential for aircraft production, became a key war resource. Greenland’s weather stations were also needed for forecasting in Europe, supporting Allied plans. The years after the end of hostilities brought a gradual rapprochement with North America in economic and political terms.

Greenland’s strategic importance remained crucial during the Cold War, as evidenced by the US’s reluctance to abandon the island despite Denmark’s initial requests. During the growing atmosphere of a clash of powers, the overseas authorities realized how crucial Greenland was as a strategically located point between the US and the USSR in the Arctic, and their purchase was considered a “military necessity.” Not mincing words, the Truman Administration offered the Kingdom of Denmark $100 million in gold for Greenland, even offering to exchange part of the island for the oil-rich Alaska as a plan B. Then as now, the offer shocked those who were addressed: “Our needs ... seemed to shock Rasmussen [then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Denmark], but he did not reject my [then US Secretary of State] suggestions outright and said he would review the note I gave him. “ As you might guess, Denmark also refused this time, but, recognising the strategic importance of Greenland, it abandoned neutrality and joined NATO.

During the Cold War, the island was a key location for early warning systems against nuclear attack over the Arctic and for surveillance and control of the narrow passage used by the Soviet Navy to transit the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. In 1951, when the previous agreement of a decade earlier expired, the US and Denmark concluded another agreement (the Greenland Defense Agreement) under which the US could establish so-called ‘defence areas’ and military bases on the island, as recognized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The agreement established the first American air base at Thule.

In 2019, as global competition intensified and the Arctic became a geopolitical battleground, Trump, for the first time as president, reminded the world of America’s continuing interest in Greenland and verbalized his desire to acquire it. Although the Greenlanders consistently rejected the American proposal, they welcomed the renewed interest in their island quite enthusiastically, which the following year brought $12.1 million in economic and political investment and the reopening of the American consulate in Nuuk for the first time since 1953.

That same year, an agreement was also signed with the Ministry of Mineral Resources of Greenland to strengthen cooperation in the development of key energy and mineral sectors. The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Energy Resources engaged with the Greenland School of Minerals and Petroleum to support Greenland’s capacity to develop a local mineral sector. Mutual efforts have focused on establishing an underground mining training facility, search and rescue programs, and thematic courses to train the necessary experts and specialists. Subsequent years have seen further strengthening of relations, including a visit by Secretary of State Antony Blinken in 2021 and further economic aid packages to develop Greenland’s mining, education, and tourism sectors.

In December 2024, Donald Trump expressed his desire to buy Greenland for the second time, and his behavior so far shows that he has taken the matter completely seriously. Similar to 2019, he has also used a similar rationalisation this time, speaking about the island’s critical importance to US security, while also doing something very disturbing. When questioned by journalists, he did not directly rule out a forceful solution to the issue. This is an unprecedented case of a NATO member publicly threatening another member of the alliance. Even if Trump does not intend to put his shocking words into action, he is creating enormous pressure and an atmosphere of intimidation in future relations with the rulers of Greenland. Worse still, he is weakening NATO’s international image and undermining the solidarity of this key military alliance - to the undoubted satisfaction of Vladimir Putin.

Some experts and officials of the presidential administration have taken up Trump’s idea and proposed concluding a special agreement of free association with the US, which would secure the territorial integrity and national independence of Greenland in the event of an application for independence from Denmark. It is emphasised that such a comprehensive economic and security agreement would be the best solution at a time of Russian-Chinese activity in the Arctic, where the US needs a permanent and stable presence. The US would consolidate its position at the top of the North Atlantic, and American investments and markets would contribute to the economic growth of Greenland. “A win-win deal,” as President Trump would put it.

As for future relations with the “big North American neighbour,” Greenland’s 2024 Foreign, Security and Defense Policy Strategy emphasises the need to remove trade barriers and expand cooperation with individual U.S. states, especially Alaska and the northeastern states. It is also worth noting the Strategy’s telling subtitle: “Nothing about us without us.” As you can see, the Greenlanders know what they want and seem to be telling the world – we are a nation and our voice should be heard.

Legally, regardless of his ambitions and imperialistic ambitions, Trump cannot peacefully take over Greenland or force it into submission, because the Greenland Self-Government Act, ratified by the Danish parliament in 2009, recognises the Greenlandic nation as “a nation under international law with the right to self-determination.” In other words, Greenland cannot be taken over by the US or any other country without the consent of the Greenlanders. And according to recent polls, such consent is lacking: more than 85% of the Greenlandic population of about 60,000 people do not want to be Americans.

In sum, the current U.S. engagement strategy builds on existing agreements and combines effective diplomacy through the U.S. consulate in the island capital of Nuuk with a variety of economic and political incentives in exchange for local acceptance of U.S. geostrategic ambitions. Such incentives include, for example, assurances that support services for installations at the US base at Pittufik (formerly Thule Air Base) are provided by local businesses, and support for the minerals and education sectors. Washington has not disclosed the total amount of these efforts, but available data estimates them at a minimum of $50 million per year.

Greenland’s strategic importance can be viewed from several perspectives. First, climate change, resource competition, and increasing militarisation in the Arctic Ocean, especially by Russia and China, have raised geopolitical tensions in the region in recent years. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 complicated its relations with the other seven Arctic states (Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the US) and prompted Finland and Sweden to join NATO. As a result, all Arctic states except Russia are NATO members. This change has raised the overall importance of the Arctic—including Greenland—for NATO. Greenland is also key to monitoring the so-called GIUK Gap (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom), a bottleneck for anti-submarine warfare in the North Atlantic during the Cold War. The gap remains important to this day for monitoring and potentially limiting Russian naval movements in the North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean. GIUK is, in other words, the Russian gateway to the Atlantic Ocean.

What’s more, Greenland straddles two strategic Arctic shipping lanes: the Northwest Passage, which includes the northern coast of North America, and the Transpolar Sea Route, which runs through the middle of the Arctic Ocean. Month-by-month, the melting of Arctic ice is increasing the commercial viability of these routes, which will significantly shorten transit times and provide a tempting alternative to current, often congested sea routes such as the Suez Canal or the Panama Canal. According to last year’s data from the Arctic Council, shipping there increased by 37% between 2013 and 2023, which only confirms the growing interest in this destination.

All of the US’s efforts so far have been aimed at limiting Sino-Russian plans for a presence near the island. The threat seems very real. Russia has significantly increased its military activity in the Arctic in recent decades. The Kremlin has revived old Soviet bases there, is building new military infrastructure, and is constantly modernizing its submarine fleet, equipping it with increasingly efficient units such as nuclear-powered icebreakers. Since declaring itself a “Near Arctic” state in 2018, China has taken steps to consolidate its position in the Arctic, including attempts to connect Europe and East Asia via a “Polar Silk Road” across the Arctic Ocean. Since 2022, Chinese investment beyond the Arctic Circle has reached over $90 billion. China’s plans also extend into the interior of the island—in 2018, the Pentagon managed to block Chinese financing for three airports there. To make matters worse, the two powers are also keen to join forces to assert their presence in the region, for example during joint patrols like the one in the Barents Sea last October.

Greenland’s other trump card is its abundant natural resources. According to the European Commission, 25 of the 34 critical raw materials necessary for the production of most modern technologies are located there. Given China’s current near-monopoly on rare earth minerals, this advantage seems invaluable to Americans, who view the technological race with China as a matter of national security. Furthermore, the US Geological Survey estimates that there are over 17.5 billion undiscovered barrels of oil and 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off the coast of Greenland. However, it is worth noting that Greenland’s mining industry is currently largely dormant due to a number of factors, including low world prices, the high costs associated with mining in the harsh Arctic environment without the necessary infrastructure, burdensome regulations, and resistance from local civil society groups.

It is also worth remembering that since 1941, the Danish island has been home to the aforementioned American space base Pituffik, which permanently houses both the US military and an early warning system against ballistic missiles. The shortest route from the US to Europe runs through Greenland, hence the importance of this particular location, for example, in NATO’s ability to track Russian submarines in the GIUK gap. In the latest Foreign, Security and Defense Strategy, the Greenlanders expressed their desire for increased military cooperation with the Americans. The document emphasizes “the desire for the Greenlanders to play a more active role in enforcing Danish sovereignty through participation in the Joint Arctic Command and the Sirius Patrol, the establishment of an administrative unit at the American space base Pituffik and eventually the creation of their own non-military coast guard.”

As you might imagine, the rest of the world – including Greenland itself – did not have to wait long for the reaction to Trump’s words. “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and we will never be for sale. We cannot lose our long fight for freedom,” the island’s prime minister, Mute Egede, said in a written statement. And in his New Year’s speech, he added that a new impetus had arrived and Greenland was ready to take another big step in its efforts to break the “shackles of colonialism” and that “Greenland is for the people of Greenland. We do not want to be Danes, we do not want to be Americans. We want to be Greenlanders.”

The Home Rule Act was passed in 2009, paving the way for a future referendum on independence. Local elections are due to be held in April, which will be the best test of public opinion on Greenland’s constitutional future. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen (the same one who called Trump's first proposal from 2019 “absurd”)spoke in a similar tone, emphasizing that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders” and only they have the right to decide on its fate .

As you can see, the reality of Greenlandic politics suggests that Greenland definitely hasno plans to become part of the United States. Instead, its short-term goal is to strengthen Greenland’s autonomy in the international arena, which is an important part of its long-term ambition to become a sovereign state. This position is also clearly verbalized in the aforementioned Greenland’s Foreign, Security and Defense Strategy of 2024, the final sentence of which clearly states: “This strategy can be updated as needed and is essentially an expression of Greenland’s will, working with others, to move towards independence.”

Trump’s proposal has also accelerated key decisions by Denmark on the island’s defense. The Danish government has announced a strengthened military capability in the Arctic, acknowledging that the time has come to expand its military presence in such a key part of the world. A $2.1 billion package has been announced to build three new warships, two long-range drones and additional dog sleds. The project also includes increasing staffing at the Arctic Command in the capital Nuuk and upgrading one of Greenland’s three main civilian airports to allow it to handle supersonic F-35 fighter jets. Plans have also been drawn up to increase investment in drones, radars and satellites in the next defense budget. Denmark seems to have understood that if it cannot protect the waters around Greenland from encroachment by China and Russia, US demands for greater control will grow.

The Danish political class seems very determined to defend the island's autonomy and is not content with words. On January 28 this year, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen began a “diplomatic crusade” and met successively with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin, French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in Brussels. The European allies have so far expressed solidarity and a desire to jointly oppose Trump's imperial ambitions. The German Chancellor firmly emphasised that: "The principle of the inviolability of borders applies to every country - regardless of whether it is to the east or to the west of us - and every state must respect it, regardless of whether it is a small country or a very powerful state.”

The French also stressed the need to respect international law: “There is no question of the European Union allowing other nations in the world, whoever they are, to attack its sovereign borders,” said Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot. António Costa, President of the European Council, expressed his full support in this matter and readiness to defend Denmark’s territorial integrity. Although Greenland is not a member of the Union, it benefits from special access to EU funds and freedom of movement for Greenlanders, who are considered citizens of the European Union. The European Commission confirmed that in the event of military aggression, Greenland would be covered by the mutual defense clause set out in the treaties.

Given Russia’s increasingly aggressive posture in the region, the US and Europe have quite similar geostrategic priorities. Denmark (read Greenland), Sweden, Iceland, Finland and Norway — NATO’s northern flank — share the Arctic with North America and Russia, and in the current geopolitical circumstances, an increased American military presence seems particularly justified for Denmark, which admits that it has neglected its defense investments on the island in recent years.

Moreover, the Danish prime minister does not hide his desire to deepen military ties with its northern neighbour: “They are already there and may have more opportunities.” That is why many experts consider Trump’s aggressive approach to be unfounded and counterproductive: “The US already has extensive military rights granted to it by Denmark. Greenland and Europe also see US security interests as closely linked to theirs and would most likely not mind Washington developing them. Trump is forcing open doors for the US.”

From the American perspective, as global competition intensifies and the Arctic becomes a critical geopolitical battlefield, the US must increase control over Greenland to secure its national security interests. But attempting to seize Greenland by force may prove too politically costly and simply unnecessary, because Washington could achieve its goals by cooperating with Greenland and Denmark.

Trump’s maximalist approach may have the opposite effect, i.e. revive Chinese activity in the territory and accelerate the ongoing militarization of the Arctic. Such blatant arrogance towards international law and the use of the “Roosevelt stick” instead of dialogue and negotiations is nothing more than giving Russia a pretext for similar behavior towards weaker states.

Analysing Trump’s recent decisions and statements (Granland, the Panama Canal, Canada, Mexico), one common denominator can be seen here - the priority of this administration will be the security of the US in its immediate surroundings. First, we clean up the so-called “our backyard”, and only then will we deal with further issues, further away from our borders. There may be several reasons for such a strategy of the US president. First, an attempt to prove to voters his agency and decisiveness in action. As is common knowledge, in the American political system the president has the first hundred days to make the most strategic decisions - then comes the time for the campaign and other matters.

Second, Trump gives the impression that he really takes his political promises such as Make America Great Again or America First seriously (although in his own specific way) and wants to go down in the history of the country as a groundbreaking reformer and one of the "great" presidents. Third, he is a typical realist, so he uses methods typical of Realpolitik, i.e. hard power. The world is now witnessing a ruthless return to the era of the “law of might,” where the largest global power, the architect of the post-war order based on liberal democracy, is itself undermining that order.---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 28 March 2025

A Peace Manifesto

INDIA AND THE WORLD

By Dr. D.K. Giri

(Prof. NIIS Group of Institutions, Odisha) 

The crying need of the world currently is peace and security, without which life and living are untenable. Violent conflicts across the world and two bloody wars have disrupted politics and economiesand have made life insecure. What is worse, the world leadership as a whole has failed to stop these two wars – Gaza and Ukraine. Only recently, since the end of January 2025, American President Donald Trump took a bold initiative, albeit controversial, to stop the war in Ukraine. There are multiple interpretations and reactions to Trump’s initiative, but what is noteworthy is the determination displayed by him to end the war in Ukraine.

In international theory, it is established that absence of war does not necessarily lead to peace. To ensure durable peace, appropriate social, economic and political structures have to be created. It is high time the international community engaged in constructing those structures. The existing inter-governmental organisations mainly United Nations have failed to generate any momentum for peace in the world, let alone stopping conflicts and wars.

Out of six thematic sessions in just-held Raisina Dialogue 2025, there was one dedicated to peace, but except for wrangling by European countries and their desperation against Trump administration, nothing substantial emerged towards peace building.This should have been the focus of the Raisina Dialogue this year. Trump’s ‘whimsical’, approach to peace would have been supported by a structured dialogue on peace.

Out of all the countries, India, the biggest democracy, without history of intervention or aggression against any country, can initiate the peace-building process in the world. This should be a part of the new world order that is likely to emerge after the ‘Trumpian assault’ on the existing one. Russia and China have been trying to transform international politics to their advantage. America, ‘the current superpower’, was consolidating the Western dominance.

The West was defined as America plus Europe. That has dramatically changed. The American Vice-President has strongly advocated withdrawing from Europe. He just said in a strategy meeting at Oval Office that, “I loathe the idea of bailing out Europe again”. Defence Secretary of US Pete Hegseth shared Vice-President’s ‘loatheness’. So, Trump’s new world order may throw up new issues and equations of power. At any rate, the desire for peace will be a priority.

Keeping the emerging scenario in mind, can we draft a peace manifesto for one world? This resonates with India’s fundamental spiritual philosophy, VasudhaivaKutumbakam. The premise is, a peaceful one world is the end, and a universal welfare system backed by a common security is the means. One world concept is derived from thousands of years of Indian thought, like the Advaita and the VasudhaivaKutumbakam embedded in the Vedas and Upanishads. They proclaim the indivisibility of the humanity and featured the earth and its inhabitants as one grand family. These ideas and wisdom remained submerged until Shri Shankaracharya presented them to the world of knowledge in the 8^th Century A.D. In modern times, Swami Vivekananda elaborated their content and meaning to the wider world about a century and a half ago. Remember his legendary speech in Chicago to the World Parliament of Religions when he addressed the gathering as, “Brothers and sisters”.

But today, we are living in a divided world, composed of nation-states, driven by nationalism and often daggers drawn at each other in the name of national security and under the influence of doctrines like deterrence. This mindset has led the world to wasting a lot of resources which could have been used for the welfare of the people everywhere in the world.

Today, we are living in not only a divided world but also a shrinking world. The communication technology has drastically reduced distances between places, countries and continents. Yesterday’s distant countries are today neighbourhoods. Also, the inter-dependence between countries has grown phenomenally. Lot of people miss this point. But the management of world affairs and inter-country relations is being managed in a confrontational mode. This has to be replaced in a peace structure by a solidarity mode, imbued with the spirit of one world.

Why did the League of Nations and United Nations fail to deliver their declared objective of preventing wars in the world? Let us elaborate as we declare UN as a failure as of now. The main reason of their failure was the built-in dichotomy between the de facto objectives of those international peace structures and of their national components. It has been found that, while keeping the League of Nations and the UN largely as talking shops of international peace, the system did not stop their national constituents from building up war machines. They wanted to fight wars with neighbouring countries in order to meet their unfair national ambitions to concur and expand.

As a result, under the nose of the League of Nations, Hitler of Germany pursued his policy of aggression by use of violent force which ignited the Second World War. In the current epoch, under the very nose of the United Nations, People’s Republic of China is pursuing an expansionist policy by use of force, which, unless effectively halted, has the potential to instigate the Third World War. What Russia has done in Ukraine is another example.

Admittedly, there is a fundamental flaw in the way the world is organised and governed today. It is based on confrontation and competition. Instead, it is important to create structures of equality, freedom and solidarity. The earth has enough resources, if mobilised prudently, for everyone to live in peace and prosperity. But it is necessary to organise the societies and countries in a cooperative and a solidarity mode. This is possible under national and universal welfare state systems. For external security, there has to be a common security system for national defence.

If the guiding principle in organising world governance is ‘one world’, the result inevitably will be universal peace and security. The nuts and bolts of this can be detailed out as there are good experiences across the world. One can draw on the welfare state systems practiced in the Scandinavian countries. These countries are at the top of the list for having peaceful and contented societies in the world. A world survey has repeatedly rated Finland as the happiest country in the world.

The slogan in the welfare system is caring from cradle-to-the grave. They call it so, because the welfare system protects an individual from their birth until their death. Since the child is born, the family gets an allowance for childcare, as they grow; they get free education and free medical care. After the education, the state is responsible for providing a gainful employment failing which it has to provide unemployment allowance to them. And, finally, when a person dies, their funeral/burial expenditure is met by the state. Thus, social security for everyone is guaranteed.

The second component of this manifesto is the common security system which would cut down the defence expenditure of all countries of the world and help them spend on welfare and development. The idea of a peace manifesto is thus mooted here for discussion in the thinking world. There is alternative to war, but no alternative to peace which everyone seeks. Let peace prevail. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 2 April 2025

Delimitation Row

SOUTHERN STATESFIRM!

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

Delimitation of parliamentary seats due in 2026 has evoked controversy with Opposition leaders, particularly the southern states, expressing serious concern and warning it will be a ‘test for democracy’. If the delimitation is solely based on population, it is expected to violate federal fairness. This has forced the southern states to challenge the proposed delimitation with the formation of the Joint Action Committee (JAC) for ‘Fair Delimitation’, comprising chief ministers and heads of political parties from Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, Odisha and Punjab. It has passed a resolution calling for a 25-year extension of the freeze on Lok Sabha constituencies based on the 1971 population census. 

The JAC initiated by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin presented a joint representation to Prime Minister Modi by a core committee of MPs. The CMs and party chiefs are determined to challenge the Centre’s delimitation plan, expressing concerns about transparency and states being penalised for successfully implementing population control measures. The JAC wants the Centre to enact Constitutional amendments to stop penalising states that implemented population control programmes. 

Stalin has rightly raised this question and wondered whether good governance in population control would backfire on the state by reducing its number of seats. There is need to maintain federal fairness by evolving some formula that is acceptable to all the states. Another point that needs to be addressed isthat while a Member of Parliament can effectively represent around 3 million people in India, in the United Kingdom it is 0.1 million and closer home in Bangladesh it’s 0.56 million. This is not to say that richer states should be rewarded with more seats. Nor is it necessary to tie representation to achievement of key development indicators, incentivising governments to improve their performance. 

Meanwhile, reports indicate that the Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav in UP and JMM in Jharkhand have lent support to Tamil Naduon the issue. However, the RJD, the main opposition party in Bihar has backed the proposed delimitation exercise. 

It is well known that the southern states stand to lose the most if the delimitation exercise is carried out on the basis of population alone. According to one estimate, Gujarat, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan would have 367 seats, constituting 47 percent of parliamentary representation while the five southern states would have a mere 164 seats. Reduced representation could erode their say on national policy and government formation. Thus, the southern states have joined together and are speaking in one voice about their concern at the erosion of federalism. 

ThoughUnion Home Minister Amit Shah has stated recently that no state will face reduction in Lok Sabha seats, it doesn’t appear to be a fact. If seats are to be allocated in proportion to the present population, UP, which now has 80 seats may send more than 130 members to a 790-strong House while Tamil Nadu will get only 43, an increase of just four seats. Indeed, states like UP, Bihar and Maharashtra would benefit, while the southern ones would see a drastic decline in their number of seats, obviously a punishment for successfully implementing family planning. 

Thus, Congress Chief Minister Revanth Reddy in Telangana has asked Centre to increase South India’s representation to 33% in the Lok Sabha (up from the current 24%). This as ‘states contributing more to GDP should have a stronger voice in Parliament’. The Congress in Karnataka has likewise warned that delimitation was ‘not a technical adjustment, but a political assault’ on southern states and that the strength of Rajya Sabha should be increased as a counterbalance to North’s numerical dominance in the Lok Sabha.AAP Chief Minister Mann in Punjab has accused BJP of ‘manipulating’ seat allocation to benefit Hindi-speaking states where it performs well, and that his state’s representation would be cut primarily because BJP is weak there. 

It is understood that the proposed Delimitation Commission will be the final authority to decide the basis of the exercise and not population alone. The Commission will be formed only after the population census is over and that members would go around the country to elicit states’ views. 

Delving into the past, the government thought it necessary not to disincentive the small family norm and delimitation of Parliament seats on basis of population was frozen for 25 years in 1976 and again for another 25 years by the Vajpayee government. The big question now is whether the BJP government wants to force delimitation in order to expand and consolidate the party’s advantage in the North? Pushing southern states into reversing population control, as Stalin warned, will obviously be ill-advised. The reality is that at the national level the nation has a population problem, and the growth needs to be checked. 

Sadly, the ruling dispensation has found a way of suppressing the southern states which are far ahead than their northern counterparts in all spheres. Whether it is education, economy or political governance, the South is more efficient in all possible ways. Even when you look at scientists, technocrats and bureaucrats, those who lead incidentally belongto the South. Thus,northern states fall behind them when it comes to competition in industrial and service sectors and an overall governance chart. 

At 1.45 billion, the country’s population continues to be above the carrying capacity of our ecosystem. Obviously, strict measures need to be taken to control the uptrend of the population rise and strict measuresmust be taken by the northern states. In fact, the Centre has an important role to play in helping the northern states, and even eastern states, in this regard. And those states that have shown success in controlling population cannot, in any way, be penalised by reducing their number of seats and thereby curtailing their powers in the national decision-making and governance process.  

Obviously, an amicable solution needs to be formulated. One such solution to the controversial issue would be to set the 2011 population as the new norm for both central resource transfers and for delimitation and freeze it at that level for the next 25 years. The delimitation could be gradual with 20 or 25 percent adjustment every five years starting 2031. 

Finally, it needs to be reiterated that in a pluralist democracy not just population, but other considerations need to be kept in mind in evolving delimitation and the Delimitation Commission, once established, can take the views of experts in this regard. It is worth remembering the American political philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville who argued that the equalising spirit of democracy exerted a prodigious influence over the whole course of society and the country, including public opinion, laws and the habits of the governed and this should not be curbed, in any way.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)