Political Diary

New Delhi, 25 February 2025

Enough Of PES

ONOE, ANYONE?

By Poonam I Kaushish 

As the 45-days-60 crore people Mahakumbh concludes in Prayagraj and spring arrives in a riot of colourful flowers there is bounce in BJP’s steps post hat-trick victories in Delhi, Maharashtra and Haryana.  Rebooted, it is now back to one of Prime Minister Modi’s pet peeve:  One Nation One Election (ONOE), an ambitious gargantuan venture with the Law Ministry underscoring  simultaneous polls don’t imprint upon citizen’s right nor violates right to vote and contest. 

Emphasizing it didn’t violate the Constitution's basic structure or federalism, would  enhance political diversity and inclusivity, bring fresh faces into politics and prevent certain leaders from monopolizing key positions, was its reply to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on ONOE Bill which raised over 20 questions, from real savings --- given mid-term polls would require imposition of Model Code of Conduct --- to whether irregularities in a polling booth would require re-polls for both Assembly and Parliamentary seats affected. 

Buttressing its point by asserting ONOE “entails a more equitable allocation of political opportunities and responsibilities within Parties.” It recalled India's democratic journey began with simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. However, it was Congress’s Indira Gandhi's Government dismissing many State Governments that ended synchronised elections 1971. Resulting in many unstable Governments at Centre and States, leading to early dissolution of  Lok Sabha or Assemblies. 

Questionably are we moving to ONOE? Specially as the country has witnessed over 450 polls to Lok Sabha and State Assemblies till date. And given Law Commission had thrice — 1999, 2015 and 2018 — argued for simultaneous elections to “free citizens, Parties and Government from encumbrance of asynchronous elections. It would reduce massive expenditure incurred in holding polls, underscored by Election Commission pegging cost of holding simultaneous elections at Rs 5,500 crore. If so, would it be advisable in the best national interest?

Prime Minister Modi thinks so and has repeatedly mooted ONOE since 2016.  It would give netas and Party workers time to take people-oriented schemes to citizens alongside saving Exchequer and Parties money. While his Party and allies JD(U) TDP etc concur, Congress, Trinamool and Samajwadi call it a “gimmick”, impractical, unworkable, unfeasible and anti-democratic.

Undeniably, simultaneous elections could be economically viable, help avoid disruptions in governance and policy paralysis due to frequent polls as once a Party is elected and Government formed it can get down to work, take hard decisions in public interest and concentrate on delivering good governance without worrying  about its impact on vote banks.

Think. Several good initiatives are dumped due to electoral considerations lest it upset a caste, community, religion or region. All, becoming victims of policy shutdown, mismanagement and poor implementation.

Presently, noisy campaigns, wasteful expenditure, rallies, blocking roads continuously disrupts our lives. Resulting in governance not only going for a toss as Prime Minister, Ministers, Chief Ministers campaign for their respective Parties but it wreaks havoc on our body politic --- right, left and centre. Week after week, month after month, year after year. A year-long merry-go-round.

Let’s face it. With State after State going to polls every year, running Central and State Governments has become challenging. Amidst this nerve-racking money spewing elections vending machines the solution to India’s chronic Perpetual Election Syndrome (PES) may perhaps lie in the panacea of holding one mega election every five years.

Undoubtedly, it is one way to get rid of incompetence, malfeasance and casual governance. But it is an idea that needs to be debated extensively at all levels. Its pros and cons must be weighted before Parliament approves it. As the change advocated would entail changing the basic structure of the Constitution.

With 15 Parties opposing ONOE the challenge is the procedural details, Government’s disregard of citizens’ right to removing non-performing Governments. Besides, fear it militates against the federal structure of multiple diversities and Constitution’s spirit along-with complex legal procedures for bringing Constitutional amendments which needs to be weighed carefully to allay fears of “infringing federalism.”

Yet, it’s a complicated road ahead and easier said than done. We have just wrapped up three State elections and the Prime Minister has already sounded the bugle for Bihar Assembly poll November followed by Assam, West Bengal,  Tamil Nadu, Kerala next year. Even as the Election Commission states it can hold ONOE in 2029. Hypothetically, it means dissolution of many State Assemblies. Undeniably, no Government, regardless of Party will be on the same page as Centre. 

Further, altering duration of local bodies needs States’ ratification. Even State election commissioners may baulk at making EC final arbiter of electoral rolls as it would dilute the federal structure and goes against the idea of ‘Union’ of States.

Some believe it is not advisable to hold simultaneous polls as it could be motivated by political considerations, given when concurrent elections are held voters tend to vote for the same Party. Also, poll issues at Centre and States are different which would create confusion. A Party could be deserving of support at the Centre for its policies and performance at the national level. Yet, the same Party could be deserving of popular punishment and defeat for its policies and performance at the State level.

Also, a fixed term for Lok Sabha and State Legislatures goes against the basic tenets of Parliamentary democracy. Supposedly if a Government enjoying  people’s mandate is voted out, it would continue to hold office or be replaced by another Government, which might not necessarily enjoy popular mandate. Also, what happens when a Government is unable to complete its term?

Plainly, a Government which lacks the confidence of the House would be foisted on people, with no say in the matter. Smacking of de facto dictatorship or monarchical anarchy, an idea which translates into unrepresentative governance.

To avoid this EC suggests a no-confidence motion against a Government must come alongside a confidence motion for another Government and Prime Minister and voting for both motions done simultaneously. Ditto in State Assemblies. 

True, there are cogent arguments on either side: Development vs accountability? Electoral expenses vs political choices? Governance vs electoral fairness?  Given how elections have an almost talismanic power in the country’s democracy the stakes couldn’t be higher.

If ONOE is passed by Parliament India will join an exclusive club of three countries --- South Africa, Sweden and Belgium. However, it depends on managing challenges and its scale therein. In Sweden, elections to county and municipal councils take place in tandem with general elections every four years. Ditto in South Africa where concurrent polls are held every five years.

Belgium's Federal Parliament elections are also held every five years, coinciding with European Parliament elections. A similar system is prevalent in Spain, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Albania, Israel, Lesotho Philippines, Costa Rica, Bolivia, Guatemala and Indonesia.  The US model could be considered. The President and State Governors are elected directly for a fixed four-year term and choose their own teams.

Clearly, time for winds of change to blow out India’s Perpetual Election Syndrome as elections are the bedrock of our democracy and we should avoid polls duplication. With States in election mode every year, running the Government is akin to running with the hare and hunting with the hound. India’s democracy should not be reduced to a tu-tu mein-mein between Parties all the time. Modi ONOE can ‘clean’ India’s destructive PES! ---- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The States

New Delhi, 22 February 2025 

Delhi Gets Woman CM

CHALLENGES AMID CELEBRATIONS

By Insaf 

Women voters in Delhi have reason to cheer. Winner BJP, after 27 long years of vanvas (exile) in the national capital, has handed over the reins to a woman, Rekha Gupta, amidst strong party contenders such as Parvesh Verma and nearly a week’s delay in taking a decision. The fourth woman CM of Delhi, Rekha, a first time MLA, has promised to take Delhi to “new heights”, obviously with the Centre’s backing or proxy rule. Apparently, her choice as CM seems to have ticked many boxes within BJP’s top brass. Her identity as a woman, plus from Vaishya community was viewed as having a social impact, as these have been pivots in AAP politics-- Kejriwal, a Vaishya, and his successor Atishi, a woman! But there’s got to be more. The capital’s demographic diversity and civic issues are varied. It’s not just the middle class or those living in jhuggis, but people coming from different regions to make a living and aspire a better life. Plus, the pledge to make Delhi a ‘world class capital’ is not going to be easy, for it’s not new. Congress’ Shiela Dikshit did manage to change the landscape, but migrants had to pay a high price. Their population is said to contribute more to population growth than births. BJP’s inclusive government is indeed going to be a test. 

The big challenge will be to provide clean water, air, proper sewage system, better roads without potholes, etc other than what AAP was offering, such as Mohalla clinics and better government school education. However, this ‘double engine’ government has one major plus point i.e. there will be no more fierce fighting with Raj Nivas. The L-G will in all probability go out of his way to aid good governance. Instead, there will be a vocal Opposition. Signs of which are already emerging on day one of Rekha taking over as CM. Atishi has already accused her of “breaking her promise” of giving Rs 2,500 to women per month as such a decision in the first cabinet meeting on Thursday evening, she claimed wasn’t taken! People are already getting ‘cheated’, she alleged. However, Rekha rebuts: “Congress ruled for 15 years, and AAP ruled for 13. Instead of looking at what they did, how can they raise questions on one day of ours?... We had a cabinet meeting on day 1, immediately after taking oath, and we cleared Ayushman Bharat Yojana, blocked by AAP. We gave a benefit of Rs. 10 lakhs to people of Delhi on the first day!” A rebuttal alright, but CM must remember “Overconfidence precedes carelessness’.  AAP history confirms.   

*                                               *                                               *                                              

TN Language War 

Language matters a lot in Tamil Nadu.  Ruling DMK and Centre are quarrelling over National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. Chief Minister MK Stalin has written Prime Minister Modi asking ‘release Samagra Shiksha funds’ worth Rs 2,152 crore ‘without linking it to NEP implementation as indicated by Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan ‘in its entirety and adopt three-language policy.’ His son and deputy CM Udhayanidhi has gone a step further. At a protest in Chennai said he: “We didn't ask for our father's money, but for our Tax money and our rights…this is a Dravidian land, this is a Periyar land, TN is a self-respected land, and do you think you (BJP) can threaten us? It will never happen.” The Centre is ‘blatantly violating cooperative federalism.’ 

In his response, Pradhan has written the state is negating the spirit and it’s “inappropriate to view NEP 2020 with a myopic vision and spin progressive education reforms into threats to sustain their political narratives”. The policy, he insisted doesn’t ‘advocate imposition of any language. Many non-BJP states have implemented it despite political differences. NEP aims to broaden the horizon, not narrow them.” But TN insists to know ‘which article of Constitution mandates the 3-language formula?’. DMK’s rival, AIADMK too has opposed the formula as it seeks to “impose Hindi”, whereas school students are taught two languages, Tamil and English. Signs of another big linguistic war erupting?

*                                               *                                               *                                              

Cong Karnataka Relief

Ruling Congress in Karnataka and its Chief Minister can heave a big sigh of relief. The Lokayukta has given a clean chit to Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvathi, her brother and landowner in the nagging alleged scam viz allotment of sites by Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). The complainant, a RTI activist, was told on Wednesday last, he could challenge the Lokayukta investigation within a week before a designated magistrate. This after its police investigated the alleged accused under various Sections of IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, and Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, and found the case came under ‘civil dispute’ as there was no ‘criminal wrongdoing’ by them! The case relates to land allotment by MUDA in 2016-2024 under its 50:50 scheme. The complainant says he will pursue the case in High Court, despite it recently rejecting his plea to transfer the case to CBI. While he claims, both government and Lokayukta officials ‘defended the corrupt’, KPCC accused BJP and JDS of using him to defame the CM. The Lokayukta police has submitted its 800-page report to the registry, which shall submit it before the special court, expected to hear the case on Monday. Will there be a final closure?

*                                               *                                               *                                              

Mrityu Kumbh Slugfest!

The ongoing Maha Kumbh in Prayagraj triggers a maha slugfest between West Bengal Chief Minister and Uttar Pradesh counterpart! With over 30 people dying in stampede, said she: “This is 'Mrityu' (death) Kumbh…I respect Maha Kumbh, I respect Ganga maa... but there’s no planning. How many people’s bodies have been recovered?... For the rich, VIPs...there are systems available to get tents after paying as much as Rs 1 lakh. But for the poor, there are no arrangements made.” Hitting back Yogi Adityanath said in UP Assembly: “Over 56 crore people had taken a holy dip in the sangam since Kumbh began’ and she’s making “baseless allegations...playing with faith of these people…is it appropriate to politicise this?”. Well, SP chief Akhilesh Yadav thinks it is. Said he: “she’s right. People from her state also lost their lives. Even an FIR hasn’t been registered. Who is responsible?” Interestingly, she’s got additional support. Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Maharaj says: “if Mela is criticised amid ‘mismanagement, deaths, we can’t oppose it… water in which devotees bathe is contaminated with sewage, making it unfit for bathing according to scientists and Yet, you are compelling crores of people to bathe in it!” Akhilesh has chipped in: “Every BJP leader should receive a tank filled with Sangam water so they can cook, bathe and even drink it as medicine when needed. Will the BJP accept this?” The question begs an answer? ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 20 February 2025

GOVT’S BONA FIDES ON TEST

By Inder Jit

(Released on15 June 1982) 

The selection of the new Chief Election Commissioner is regrettably not receiving the attention it deserves from the public and, what is more, the media. Interest of the two is largely focussed on the next President. The choice of the head of State is no doubt of great importance. A good President who is truly willing to put the country before self is something to hope and pray for after the unhappy experience of the past decade and more. But in sheer practical terms the job of the CEC is no less crucial to the health of our democracy. Alas, this is still not adequately appreciated even days before the CEC’s post falls vacant on Friday, June 18. As I have averred before, there would have been no general election in West Bengal or bye-election in Garhwal or, indeed, the recent mini general poll in May if we did not have in Mr S.L. Shakdher an independent and impartial CEC who refused to allow any pressure or temptation to deflect him from the path of duty on the eve of his retirement unlike many lesser men. 

The Opposition leaders understand the key nature of the CEC’s job. An independent CEC alone can ensure free and fair elections which are the bedrock of any democracy. These leaders, therefore, did well on May 26 to demand that the Government should consult them in the appointment of the CEC and thereby ensure his impartiality. Significantly, they also urged that Mr Shakdher be allowed to continue as CEC pending two things. First, a full-scale discussion in Parliament of the electoral reforms proposed by the Election Commission. Scores of sound proposals continue to gather dust for the past many years -- proposals which would have strengthened the system and cried a halt to many scourges, including political harlotry. Only the other day, Mr Shakader made the eminently pragmatic suggestion that defectors could be made to forfeit their seats through an amendment of the Representation of the People Act. Second, a decision on the CEC’s tenure of office and terms and conditions of his service in accordance with the Constitution of, in effect, the wishes of its Founding Fathers. 

Both the Government and the media appear to have got the wrong end of the stick, as reflected in a news item put out by a leading wire agency quoting official sources -- and another published by a leading Delhi daily. The news agency despatch stated that “no extension is likely to be given to Mr Shakdher, pending a parliamentary debate on poll reforms.” It added: “According to official sources, poll reforms and the tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner are not inter-linked in any way as was being made out by the Opposition parties”. The newspaper confirmed that “the Government has no intention to give an extension to the CEC, Mr Shakdher, pending a parliamentary debate...” Clearly, the Government and the media have missed the point and treated the matter as though it was merely a question of giving Mr Shakdher an extension -- as in the case of some bureaucrats. The truth is that this case is altogether different and involves an issue which is basic to the independence of the CEC. It has nothing to do with the person of Mr Shakdher. 

To begin from the beginning. The Constitution makers were clear that the Election Commission must be independent and went ahead to create an Election Commission which would function without fear or favour. Accordingly, Article 324(1) of the Constitution provides: “The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission.)” But all this would have been meaningless without ensuring the independence of the Chief Election Commissioner. Therefore, the Founding Fathers also provided under Section 5 of the same Article that “the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on like grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court”. Further, “the conditions of service of the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment”. 

That is not all. The Constitution makers wanted Parliament to further ensure the Commission’s independence by enacting a law in regard to the conditions of service and the tenure of office of the CEC. The President was, however, empowered pending such legislation to determine both by rule. Shockingly, no such law has been enacted in the 32 years that have rolled by. Instead, the tenure and conditions of service of the CEC have continued to be left to the whims and fancies of the Government of the day. Some might argue that there is little difference between executive rules framed by the Government and a law proposed by the Government. But there is a qualitative difference. Parliament has a say in the enactment of any law when it comes up for discussion. Not unoften, the Government is known to accept amendments from its own party or under pressure from the Opposition and public opinion. But Parliament has no voice in the framing of rules which, in theory, could not only be arbitrary and autocratic but also mala fide -- designed to help the ruling party. 

The Constitution makers equated the CEC with a Judge of the Supreme Court. Article 324(5) provides that a CEC shall not be removed from office except in like manner and on like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court. But the rules do not reflect this. Today the CEC is not only appointed by the Government according to its sweet will, but the Election Commission’s secretariat has been virtually reduced to the position of a subordinate office. Indeed, everything about the CEC was ad hoc until 1972, when the rules were framed. Consequently, the first CEC, Mr Sukumar Sen, held office for seven years. He was followed by Mr K.V.K. Sundaram from 1958 to 1967 and Mr S.P. Sen-Verma from 1967 to 1972. Dr Nagendra Singh, now a world Court Judge, functioned as the CEC for a few months. He was succeeded by Mr. T. Swaminathan, who had retired as Cabinet Secretary. All five retired at 65 years or more; the rule provides for the CEC’s retirement at 65 or after five years, whichever is earlier. Mr Shakdher will be the first CEC to retire at sixty-three and a half years. 

What should be done? A law must be enacted at the earliest and the Election Commission enabled to function independently without the hidden constraints. The absence of any legislation tends to compromise the independence of the Commission and the self-respect of the CEC. Incredible as it may seem, the CEC has no authority to create a responsible post in his secretariat. All the power vests with the Law Ministry. (Incidentally, Mr Shakdher has not taken any leave in five years unsure whether he can do it on his own or whether he has to write to the Law Ministry.) Often his directions have even been flouted. Not long ago, the Ministry issued instructions over the head of the Commission to all the Chief Electoral officers not to provide any funds for the Commission’s scheme to issue photograph-cum-identity cards for voters all over the country. The Ministry thus interfered with the Commission’s functioning and its efforts to ensure free and fair elections. Ultimately, the Prime Minister intervened and about Rs 16 crores has been provided in the current financial year. But that is another matter. 

The Opposition has made a sensible proposal in suggesting that Mr Shakdher be allowed to continue in office until a law regarding the CEC’s tenure and conditions of service is enacted in accordance with the Constitution. In case a new CEC is appointed to succeed Mr Shakdher on June 18, the whole matter will automatically get cold-storaged for another five years even if the Government decides to bring forward the overdue legislation in Parliament’s next session and enact it before the year is out. How? The Constitution, as I have stated earlier, bars the Government from varying the terms and conditions of service of a CEC once he is appointed. Thus, if there is to be a law and if Parliament has to have a say in regard to the new CEC, the job will have to be done before the new CEC takes office. At any rate, no one can be sure about what may happen tomorrow, having regard to the experience of 32 years. Once the issue is no longer pressing, it is certain to be forgotten for another five years. 

Mr Shakdher, it needs to be clarified, is not interested in an extension. Indeed, the move of the Opposition leaders came to him as a surprise. Even today it is not clear whether he would accept an extension. However, there are three good reasons in the public interest for delaying the new CEC’s appointment. First, the Presidential election is now in process. It would seem odd to have a change midstream. Second, Mr Shakdher is the first CEC to have received full-throated praise from the Opposition and the public at large for his independence of action. Time was when the CPI(M) in West Bengal denounced Mr Shakdher as a “running dog” of the Congress(I). Yet, the same party has now offered him kudos. Mrs Gandhi herself complimented the CEC in March last in Parliament for his impartiality. What is more, the Supreme Court has confirmed every single decision of Mr Shakdher during the past five years and in the process even extended the CEC’s power through new interpretation of the Constitution and the election laws. It has now advised the Courts not to interfere in the electoral process once an election is announced. 

Third, a delayed appointment of the CEC would enable Parliament to decide whether India should continue with a one-man Commission or opt for a three-man Commission as strongly pressed for by JP and, significantly, favoured by the former Law Minister, Mr Shiv Shankar, in Parliament. An extension to Mr Shakdher and a delay in the appointment of the new CEC could provide an intervening period which could be utilised usefully in legislating not only for the CEC’s tenure of office and conditions of service but also for an overdue discussion on electoral reforms. The new CEC’s appointment could be made an occasion to open a new chapter in the Commission’s life. The Government would, therefore, do well to respond constructively to the plea of the Opposition and take immediate steps to make amends. The Constitution has been violated already for far too long. A positive response would also help ensure continuance of an atmosphere in which polls are not only free and fair but also without fear. The Government should not make an issue of the CEC’s extension. Its bona fides is on test. -- INFA.

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 21 February 2025

Qatar’s Emir In Delhi

ELEVATING BILATERAL TIES

By Dr. D.K. Giri

(Prof. NIIS Group of Institutions, Odisha) 

Qatar is popularly known in Indian political community for its mediatory role in Middle East crises, mainly Israel-Gaza conflict, for contacts with militant Hezbollah and for world economic summits in its capital Doha. Qatar occupies a strategically crucial position in West Asia being a middle power in the Arab world and as a non-NATO ally of the United States. The visit of Emir of Qatar, Seikh Tamin bin Hamad Al-Thani is significant for the foregoing reasons as well as for resetting India’s bilateral relations. The recent episode of hanging of Indians which was commuted at the behest of Prime Minister Modi rings loud in Indian communities in Qatar and their relations in India. 

The Emir was on a two-day visit to India which resulted in elevating bilateral ties to a strategic partnership. Note that Qatar is the fifth GCC country (Gulf Cooperation Council) with which India has signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement. Four countries preceding Qatar are: UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait. Qatar committed to investing 10b USD in India; the Qatar Investment Authority will set up an office in India; the current bilateral trade of 14b USD is to be doubled in the next five years. It was discussed that a bilateral Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement should be signed in near future. An FTA – Free Trade Agreement is also in the offing. Also, both countries agreed to expedite negotiations for the India-Qatar Bilateral Investment Treaty. 

In addition to signing of Strategic Partnership and discussions on other probable agreements, there were six other deals fixed during this visit. These are: setting up of Joint Ministerial Commissions at the level of Foreign and Commerce Minister; deepening energy partnership through trade and mutual investments; extension of Indian E-visa facility for Qatar nationals; operationalisation of India’s UPI in Qatar; India and Qatar to celebrate year of culture and friendship in future, and a revised agreement for avoiding double taxation. There were wide-ranging discussions at various levels in order to enhance cooperation in areas like trade, investment, energy and security. 

To share some information about Qatar, it has been ruled as a hereditary monarchy held by Thanis since Mohammed bin-Thani signed an agreement with colonial Britain in 1868 to recognise Qatar as a separate entity. After Ottoman rule, Qatar became a British protectorate in 1916 and gained independence in 1971. The current Emir of Qatar was the visiting guest on 16-17 February. He holds all powers under the Constitution of Qatar. It has the fourth-highest GDP per capita in the world. It is a high-income economy with world’s third-largest natural gas and oil reserves. 

India-Qatar relationship consists of two main elements – Qatar supplying liquefied natural gas to India and Indian expat community. Indian expats constitute a formidable 27% of Qatar’s population. They are a major source of foreign remittances for India. World Bank data suggests that Indian expats in Qatar send around 4.14b USD in remittances to India. Both these elements are facing challenges in the changing geo-political context. Indian expats are not just menial workers but are the backbone of Qatar’s robust economy. Qatar is heavily dependent on Indian workforce. Indian expats are 800,000 plus. 

The construction industry which is the predominant sector of Qatar economy is a major employer of Indian blue-collar workers. Qatar’s infrastructure projects need labourers, masons, carpenters, plumbers and electricians.  These workers come mainly from Indian community in Qatar. So the mutual dependence – India for gas and Qatar for skilled manpower – is often underplayed in diplomatic niceties. The harsh punishment imposed on Indians has alarmed the expat community in Qatar. Whether they were guilty is a matter of separate discussion. 

The supply of LNG faces competition from the United States. For various reasons, India is moving closer to the US. It is inclined to import LNG from the United States. Then what happens to Qatari LNG supplies? How will India hedge between Qatar and US when the former was providing cheaper LNG to India? India should be careful in undermining long-standing mutually beneficial partnership with Qatar. Remember, the recent 20-year LNG deal with Qatar is estimated to have saved India 6b USD. There is an attempt by the European countries to buy Qatari gas in the wake of Russia-Ukraine war. Yet, Qatar signs a 20-year agreement with India in recognition of India as an emerging world power as well as a potential market. 

The challenges which still persist between India and Qatar include issues related to labour rights, expat welfare and regional tensions. The last one fully occupies Qatar as it is often made to play the interlocutor. Persistent conflict between Israel and Palestine, the instability caused by internal conflicts in Syria, rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran for regional leadership, unrelentingly occupy Qatar. New Delhi could team-up with Qatar to give a hand to the latter in dealing with the regional tensions. 

India and Qatar have had a steady relationship. It needs to be deepened. New Delhi should engage more with Qatar in West Asian security situation. As such, Indian-Qatar relationship is too crucial for both countries to be taken for granted. The relation should enhance by constant nurturing, strategic foresight and a clear understanding of the dramatically changing global geo-politics. In that sense, Emir’s visit to India is quite impactful. Qatar should expand its investment in India. Modi should reciprocate by helping Qatari economy in many other areas where India is strong. 

New Delhi cannot cold-shoulder any West Asian country, let alone Qatar. India has huge Diaspora in Middle East, in many countries. Indian economy is bolstered by remittances from the expats. Indians are increasingly getting involved in the growth and development of the West Asian countries which they have embraced as their places of work and stay. Their goodwill from the host countries should be harnessed for improving India’s bilateral ties in the Middle East. 

New Delhi is not short of diplomatic initiatives and Prime Minister’s personal warmth with leaders of West Asia. As said, Modi’s personal intervention precluded a major tragedy when Indian Navy officers and others were given death sentence by Qatari judiciary. The Foreign Minister Jaishankar’s strategic visits to Doha are indicators of New Delhi’s deft diplomacy. That should continue in the interest of consolidation of India-Qatar bilateralism. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)