Open Forum
New
Delhi, 30 August 2018
Foreign Aid For Kerala
POLICY, PRIDE & PREJUDICE
By Dr S.Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
Latest political controversy containing
multiple issues within one major issue relates to refusal of financial aid from
the Government of United Arab Emirates by the Government of India for relief
and rehabilitation work in flood hit Kerala. Pressure for accepting the offer
of aid is building up and a case for distinguishing humanitarian assistance
from other forms like military support is made.
It is turned into a legal constitutional
issue as a former Kerala Minister has moved the Supreme Court accusing the Centre of “turning its
back” on the people of flood-ravaged Kerala. The Minister invoked Article 142
of the Constitution, under which the Supreme Court may pass such decree and
make such order as is necessary for doing “complete Justice” in a cause or
matter pending before it. The petition seeks Supreme Court’s direction to the
Union Government to allow foreign aid for relief and rehabilitation work. The
petitioner contended that refusal of foreign aid is against the National
Disaster Management Plan of 2005.
Conflicting reports are circulating about
offer of aid and reaction of governments and leaders. Foreign aid, even in times of crisis, is not
just a humanitarian gesture, but involves a complicated relationship as a donor
and client.
Kerala Chief Minister said the UAE offered
Rs.700 crore financial assistance for the State’s post-flood reconstruction
efforts. The amount exceeding the amount
granted by the Government of India as initial payment by 100 crore of rupees
has become a subject matter for criticism of the government.
The Government of India has decided to
decline the aid from any foreign country despite the loss being enormous and
said it would depend on “domestic resources” for providing relief and
rebuilding Kerala in keeping with the decision taken in 2004 and followed
thereafter.
However, a clear official policy is not
proclaimed. Meantime, certain other countries like Qatar, Maldives, and Saudi
Arabia have also offered assistance, and Pakistan too has expressed willingness
to extend any humanitarian assistance.
The State Government has asked the Centre to
provide a special package of Rs. 2,600 crore to meet the massive relief and
rehabilitation work. Out of 14 districts in the State, 11 are affected by
flood. Surging rivers and landslides have damaged roads, bridges, and buildings.
Standing crops are destroyed; and enormous loss of material goods of residents
and public properties has taken place.
The Kerala Chief Secretary filed an affidavit
in the Supreme Court giving details of the loss and misery caused by flood. He
stated that 774 villages out of the total of 1,564 in the State (about 50 per
cent) were inundated, and over one-sixth of the State population of 3.48 crore
were directly affected.
International agencies cannot rush aid to any
country without the consent of the government of the recipient country.
Therefore, offer of aid from the UAE cannot be accepted by Kerala unless
approved by the Government of India.
Keralites have a special relationship with
Middle East countries where they seek and find jobs in all sectors. Over 2
million Indian migrants mostly from Kerala are estimated to be living in UAE,
largely in the three major cities -- Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Sharjah constituting
about 27 per cent of the total population of UAE.
Non-resident Indians are substantially contributing
to the wealth of UAE by their labour and expertise. It is due to this
background situation that UAE has figured as an important donor to respond
quickly to help Kerala.
India has the distinction of being on top for
receiving foreign remittances. It is estimated to be about $69 billion in 2017.
Highest amount of $15.69 billion was received from UAE. Remittances from Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar were
estimated to be $ 2.95, 2.61, and 2.29 billion respectively in 2017. There is a
village in Kerala known as Dubai village where at least one member from every
household is said to be working in the Middle East. No wonder, Kerala
government and people nurture some special attachment with these countries --
something that others may not share.
Still, government to government relation is a
different matter; and receiving and offering aid has no link with seeking
employment or hiring manpower. The essential difference between the two
situations seems to have been missed by panic-stricken critics.
Material and financial aid is not a simple
matter of give and take. In times of crisis in any part of the country, people
have shown exemplary courage and willingness to engage in relief and
rehabilitation work.
In refusing foreign aid for disaster relief,
India is only following recent practices and policy decisions. In 2004 tsunami,
UPA government in India declined to accept aid from foreign governments and
international agencies and decided to rely on self-support. Once the crisis was
over, assistance was taken for rebuilding through agencies. During Uttarakhand
and Kashmir flood, the country again manifested self-reliance.
The row over reported aid from UAE has taken different
forms. It is related to Central aid to a State – an aspect of Union-State
relation; it is an issue of a BJP Government at the Centre and Left Front
Government in Kerala -- part of inter-party relationship; it also provides a
point of contention between leftist ideology and the rightist which is prone to
perceive conflict wherever there is difference of opinion. Internationally, it
is a policy matter that contains long-term foreign relationship with donor countries
– an issue that must be handled by the Union Government.
Suddenly, a new turn has appeared with the
report that the UAE has not officially announced any financial aid and that it
would come out with its plans in the next few days.
There are many countries that take a policy
decision of refusing aid to fight national calamities. Recently, Venezuela, despite high inflation,
serious flood, and medical shortage refused to accept assistance sticking to
its policy of taking assistance only when disaster overtakes local
capacities. Thailand, Myanmar, and Chile
have at times declined to receive assistance after disaster. Even Nepal rejected
continued Indian assistance during flood despite being a close neighbour.
The general idea is that receiving assistance
for chronic crisis can create aid dependency. When the crisis is partly
man-made or becomes acute because of human interventions in natural formations,
seeking assistance will not yield a permanent solution. The trouble is that
people who suffer from disasters may not be the people who contribute to the
cause of calamities. This makes it difficult to be idealistic on aid policy and
sermonize to victims – people or government.
Aid from foreign countries used to come with
strings attached during the post-War world. It was different from aid from
international agencies. International relations are changing, but recipients of
aid always have to guard against any expectations in return in this period of
global economy.
To impute motives in the stand of the
government like “pride” in remaining self-reliant or “prejudice” against the
State in need is sheer politics that fails to understand the intricacies of the
nation’s foreign policy.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|