31 Crore Illiterates : A Slap on the face of Digital India Campaign

Digital India (DI) campaign by the present government of India is an illustrative initiative to promote citizen empowerment and thus fuel rapid economic growth. Government website www.mygov.in further elucidates that DI has a vision to empower every citizen with access to digital services, knowledge and information.

In context of DI, we can categorise people of India into categories. People having smart gadgets like smartphone or laptop or PC shall form first category. Second category will be of those who are literate but cannot afford a smart gadget. Persons who can neither write their name nor can afford a smart gadget will form third category. 

But the question arises that DI will empower whom?     

While category one people can easily get any info through newspapers, online feeds and by surfing webs, category two people will hardly be impacted by DI. And what to say of category three people, they don’t know even to read or write their own name. How is DI going to impact them? How can any awareness be brought out in those persons who cannot read even a letter printed on the suit of our hon’ble PM which fetched 4.31 crores?

India that is Bharat – Corepati of Illiterates

Category three (illiterates with no smart gadgets) comprises of 31 crores of people as per 2011 survey. As per report published in The Hindu on 30^th June 2014, India has 28.7 cores of illiterate adult population, being the largest illiterate population. We are CROREPATI OF ILLITERATES. But, irony of the situation is that, our government does not feel any need to think over this issue. Nowhere, I see any concerns over illiteracy.  

A long journey – From “Sabhyata ka jagadguru” to “country of illiterates”

We have travelled a long path – from the position of being called as “Sabhyata ka jagadguru” (teacher of civilization) to country of illiterates. We have great treasure books on astronomy, mathematics and philosophy. In case of philosophy, we were masters and we are one till now. Our books in philosophy comprise of 4 Vedas, 18 Mahapuranas, 108 Upanishads, 19 Brahmanas, Mahabharata, Bhagwadgita, Tripitaka, bundles of Jain and Budhist texts and many mores to count. One may not be able to read the whole collection in his/her lifetime. And most these were written at the time when people living in USA and Europe used to walk naked in jungles for food and shelter and had no idea of what the clothes are for.  

Are we continuing this 'glorious' journey?

There is no any single reason behind start of this journey. Period of journey may be called as “the Dark Age” for India. But the fact to regret is that we are still in the Dark Ages. Still, the program for literacy is not being taken on the mission mode.   ‘

Digital India at this stage will lead to digitally divided India. India can not afford to compromise with illiteracy. While we campaign for DI and while we move on with Make In India, the illiteracy eradication must be carried on. Last sincere efforts were taken by Rajiv Gandhi govt. in 1988. After that Narsimha Rao govt. started Mid Day Meal program. It was a milestone but did not yield the desired result. Then after, right to education was made fundamental right in 2006. But the present government does not seem to be concerned for this. 

What can be done and what should be and why?

The rationale behind literacy program to be conducted on emergency mode is that more than 31 crores of illiterate people of India will be benefitted from DI as well the hundreds of programs already being taken by govt. including those of poverty alleviation. Policy makers and guards of national development have failed to realise that 31 crores of people cannot even write their name then how can they get any benefit from any of the program of GOI. What awareness can they get from DI or any other plan?

Unless 100 % literacy is not achieved, policies will get strangled into paralysis of implementation. None of the policies can be implemented to the grassroot level unless, cent percent literacy is achieved. No empowerment of people is possible without literacy. Slogans of women empowerment, backward class empowerment and empowerment of the downtrodden will prove to be epic failure. Otherwise policies and schemes of the government will continue to be a mockery on the face of poor people.     

The literacy mission should be taken in PPP mode on a mission mode. NGOs like Teach for India can be taken help of. Three months of programme is enough to make someone able to read and write their name and read the newspaper in their vernacular language. We engage a lot of government staff during elections for 2-3 months. In similar way, we can engage them to promote literacy.

When people will become literate enough to read newspapers or mobile feeds then only the DI success can be achieved. Hence, cent percent literacy achievement should be top priority to reap the benefits of new program and before launching any program.

After Osama,Afgan,Iraq,Lybia and …. China fears as the final target

When the whole world is relieved with the deaths of Osama, Saddam, Gaddafi.. many Chinese are scared of the next focus of US for pro- democracy regime change. This will bring a wave of joy to pro-democracy and freedom loving people within china (e.g. Liu Xiaobo, student revolutionaries and the people tortured by autocratic and dictator regime).
The United States' most vilified terrorist foe has been dead and also many regime change has been a success but China is already haunted by the phantom of the next big US enemy. Almost simultaneously with the spread of the news of immolation cases of monks (who have been a symbol of peace and sacrifice since millions of years), Chinese analysts had begun the guessing game of where Washington will focus its attention next.
"Why didn't they catch him(Osama) alive?" speculated military affairs analyst Guo Xuan. "Because he was no longer needed as an excuse for Washington to take the anti-terror war outside of the US borders. It is because of bin Laden that the US were allowed to increase their strategic presence in many places around the world as never before. But Libya and NATO's attack there have changed the game. They (the US) no longer need bin Laden to assert their authority."
Even before bin Laden's death, Beijing had expressed concern that the US strategists are diverting their attention from the war on terror to containing the rise of China and other emerging economies.
A long article on Libya stalemate published by the editor of Contemporary International Relations magazine, Lin Limin, argued that the US has been unwilling to take the lead role in the Libya conflict because it has "finally woken up to the fact that its main reason to worry are the emerging countries.
Iraq,Afganistan and Libyia and now Syria might have acted as the rehearsal battleground for US.
The US presence in Afghanistan has always been a controversial one for Chinese politicians. China joined the global war on terror because bin Laden's political agenda of setting up an Arab caliphate and sponsoring terrorism presented a direct threat to its restive Muslim north-western region of Xinjiang. But Beijing has been suspicious of the US intentions, worrying that Washington is pursuing a broader agenda for long-term presence in the region, which China regards as its backyard.
Beijing officially hailed the killing of the terrorist leader by the US as "a milestone and a positive development for the international anti-terrorism efforts".
USA will get the support from each and every single country in the world (Except Russia). But it is not the simple one. US will also get the support from the major part of Chinese population :
Case of Liu Xiaobo : He was awarded noble peace prize for the work in the field of human rights. He has exposed how China is curbing the human rights of Chinese people to an extreme. The violation of human rights in china can be discussed under the following scenarios :
a. Baby Thefts :

It is the extreme and heinous case of human rights violation. Children are being stolen from the people in rural areas and being sold to people in urban areas.
b. Torture on Youth and their rights :

It was clearly evident in 1989 when china openly massacred youths at Tiananmen Square. Present situation is worse than this. Youths are not allowed to assemble together even for social or cultural motives.
c. Atrocities committed on monks :

Monks are taking to self immolation to be safe from the Chinese atrocities. This is the worst case of self immolation world can see.
d. Property accumulation by communist cadres: Communist cadres snatch the property of common people whenever and wherever they wish. People have no right on their personal property. Chinese authorities (communist cadres) can snatch anything anytime.
Chinese public reaction to the news of bin Laden's death has mixed reluctant admiration at the success of the secret mission played out reportedly on screens in front of US president Barack Obama with outright fear over what comes next.
"The whole thing seemed like an intelligence operation lifted straight out of '24' (a TV series about US counter-terrorism agents)," said Huang Mei, a TV producer with barely concealed awe. "How advanced and confident they must be to ask their president to watch the killing mission on screens live!"
But some see bin Laden's demise as a blow to efforts to promote a school of Anti-American thought.
"The great anti-America fighter bin Laden was murdered by the US! How sad!" wrote one commenter on Sina's popular Weibo micro-blogging site.
"Is this real? Excellent!" wrote another of the news. "Now the only terrorist left is the United States!"
Commentators have begun analyzing the political capital reaped by Obama and preparing for the possibility that he may win a second term in office. Writing in Beijing's Xinjing Bao, commentator Chen Bing predicted the US will exploit the death of bin Laden to expand its influence in the Middle East and bring the Arab spring to an end.
"What a great way to issue a warning to all anti-American politicians in the region," Chen said. "And a declaration that it (the US) intends to mould the Middle East according to its own design."

The irony of the situation is that in almost all the cases of regime change, local support was negligible, but in case of china, huge support, especially youth population, will accompany US.

In the democracy, who is more powerful : Parliament or People -A retrospect to Anna movement

Although democracy is a holistic phenomenon and its different components are interconnected, its three main attributes can be identified as political, economic and cultural equality. These three attributes collectively contribute to the make-up of a healthy democratic regime, and consequently the success of democracy depends upon the extent to which these equalities are respected and implemented. The vibrancy of a functioning democracy, therefore, would depend upon the social acceptance of the idea of equality, which as a principle the Indian Republic has written into its Constitution. Yet, in practice equality is a far cry in any of these three domains.

This condition raises the question whether the prevalence of institutional structures is a sufficient guarantee to ensure democratic rights. This question is pertinent in the Indian context as, despite institutional support, the functioning of Indian democracy during the last 63 years has perpetuated and deepened differences within society.
Parliament's unanimous adoption of a resolution agreeing “in principle” with Team Anna's position on the three sticking points that prolonged the standoff on the Lokpal legislation is a triumph for the anti-corruption mood in the country — and for the Gandhian technique of non-violent mass agitation on issues of vital concern to the people. Anna Hazare and his team deserve full credit for recognising and riding this popular mood, which showed plenty of signs of becoming a wave; for giving concrete shape to the inchoate aspirations of the movement against corruption through the provisions of the Jan Lokpal Bill; and for working out a strategy and tactics that refused to compromise on the core issues but knew when to raise the stakes and when to settle.

As for the political players, the major opposition parties did well to recognise the soundness of the core demands of Team Anna and keep up the pressure on the government. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the politically savvy elements in the United Progressive Alliance regime can also take some credit for the way they finally acted to resolve this crisis.

What is clear to everyone — except the unreconstructed elements within the political system who have long been opposed to a strong, independent, and effective statutory authority to go after corruption at all levels — is that the Lokpal Bill that was introduced in Parliament by the government and is now before a Standing Committee lies thoroughly discredited. The government must not be guided by those in its ranks who advocate some kind of rearguard action in committee or on the floor of the House to go back on commitments made. The fact is that in sum, that is, in the parliamentary resolution and during the preceding rounds of discussion with Team Anna, the government conceded the following key demands. In addition to Ministers, Members of Parliament (subject to Article 105 of the Constitution), and Group ‘A' officers, the Prime Minister at one end and the lower bureaucracy at the other will be brought under the jurisdiction of the Lokpal. Secondly, under the same statute, strong and effective Lokayuktas on the same model as the Lokpal will be established in all States. Team Anna contends that no constitutional problem is involved here since the Lokpal legislation deals with substantive and procedural criminal law, which is covered by Entries 1 and 2 of the Concurrent List in the Constitution. The bottom-line is that it makes no sense to have a strong and effective Lokpal to investigate and prosecute central public servants for corruption while having defunct or no Lokayuktas in States. Thirdly, the Lokpal legislation will provide for a grievance redressal system, requiring all public authorities to prepare a citizen's charter and make commitments to be met within a specified time frame. Constitutionally speaking, these arrangements are covered by Entry 8 of the Concurrent List dealing with actionable wrongs. Whether the Lokpal or another authority established under the same law will oversee this grievance redressal system remains an open question. For its part, Team Anna has agreed that judges need not come under the Lokpal provided a credible and independent Judicial Conduct Commission, free from conflict of interest and empowered to investigate and prosecute charges of corruption against judges, is established by law. Unfortunately, the contentious issue of a selection committee for the Lokpal could not be resolved. But considering that virtually everyone outside the UPA seems opposed to the official Lokpal Bill's provision that the government will nominate five of the nine members of the selection committee, this can probably be regarded as a dead letter.

There are some excellent provisions in the Jan Lokpal Bill that have gone mostly unnoticed. For instance, Section 6(o) provides that the Lokpal can recommend the cancellation or modification of a lease, licence, permission, contract or agreement obtained from a public authority by corrupt means; if the public authority rejects the recommendation, the Lokpal can “approach [the] appropriate High Court for seeking appropriate directions to be given to the public authority.” It can also press for the blacklisting of those involved in acts of corruption. Then there is Section 31(1), which stipulates that “no government official shall be eligible to take up jobs, assignments, consultancies, etc. with any person, company, or organisation that he had dealt with in his official capacity.” Section 31(2) provides that “all contracts, public-private partnerships, transfer by way of sale, lease, and any form of largesse by any public authority shall be done with complete transparency and by calling for public tender/auction/bids unless it is an emergency measure or where it is not possible to do so for reasons to be recorded in writing.” And Section 31(3) requires that “all contracts, agreements or MOUs known by any name related to transfer of natural resources, including land and mines to any private entity by any method like public-private partnerships, sale, lease or any form of largesse by any public authority shall be put on the website within a week of being signed.”
In appraising what has happened over the past fortnight, a red herring needs to be got out of the way — the idea of the ‘supremacy of Parliament' versus everyone who comes up against it. Parliamentarians who assert this need to learn their Constitution. In India, unlike Britain, Parliament is not supreme; the Constitution is. Nor is law-making “the sole prerogative” of Parliament. The significant victory of the anti-corruption campaigners gives political India a rare opportunity to translate fine anti-corruption sentiments into a potent law that can be a game-changer. The challenge before the people of India is to ensure, by keeping up the pressure, that in the tricky business of law making in committee and on the floor of the Houses of Parliament a potentially powerful instrument is not blunted.

~Ideas collected from various articles (especially from The Hindu and Frontline)

What does the Peace mean in Modern World?

In general, peace describes a society or a relationship that is operating harmoniously and without violent conflict. Trade and commerce, which is an integral part of modern civilization and is essential for livelihood of common people, can progress only when there is no fear. In the words of Dr. R. N. Tagore
“Where the mind is without fear and head is held high,
Where the world has not broken up by narraow domestic walls….”
The abovementioned lines clearly depict a picture of peace. The common and basic needs of people viz. food, clothing and shelter can be fulfilled only when peace prevails. Our country India has been a worshipper of peace and non violence since the time long.Peace is commonly understood as the absence of hostility, or the existence of healthy or newly healed interpersonal or international relationships, safety in matters of social or economic welfare, the acknowledgment of equality, and fairness in political relationships. In international relations, peacetime is the absence of any war or conflict.
The time has come to look into the peace perspectives not from the view of a nationhood rather it should be take into the consideration the whole humanity. I mean to say that while dealing with international peace problem e.g. Terrorism, Naxalism, insurgency and religion fundamentalism, the interests of humanity as a whole (whole world) should be taken into consideration.
Patriotism is good but humanity and brotherhood is far better. No country should promote terrorism or spread venom against other country on the shake of patriotism or religious fundamentalism.
Even within country people indulge into violence stating that they are not getting their full rights. It should be promoted that people should take care of other’s rights too while demanding their own. They should not interfere with the rights of others. Because an eye for an eye is making the whole world blind. Naxalism and Maosim which is claiming lives of thousands of innocent people every year in India is a result of this. Peace is a necessary condition for a nation and society to develop and prosper. Peace in the home country as well at international level is must for the mankind to prosper.

Our neighbouring country Nepal is suffering from political unstability. It has hampered the growth of the country at all levels. People’s lives have been greatly affected. It has led to the violation of human rights, murders, loot and chaos etc.
A stable government is needed. More important is a need of constitution for the new nation. The international agencies such as UN and other NGOs working may spread awareness about the new form of government and importance of constitution. Solution for new constitution may be that a council be formed to compile the constitution. Noted people from every field of life like politics, journalism technocrats, diplomats etc of Nepal and a team of unbiased and fair people from United Nation should included in the council. Role of youth is utmost important. Youth leaders should be there to represent the future Nepal. While framing the constitution, care should be taken to consider the interests of people from all walks of life. As per the present situation in Nepal, it is highly recommended that a unbiased team of intelligent people from UN should be there to guide the process and most important function of this team will be to stop the friction during the framing of constitution between Maoists and political party representatives of Nepal.
Then after framing of constitution, it will be easier for the people to choose the government through a fair election process. Also it will be easier for the present government to function in a way as to promote peace and progress of the country. Initially to enforce the constitution Nepal may need the peace keeping force to tackle the Maoists iff they are unsatisfied with the new constitution or the new government.
Thus in this way only a beautiful country of the world can be taken onto the path of peace and progress and common people of the country will be relieved and enjoy their rights..

Blunder of the millennium for India : Third part

UNSC Seat: Did Nehru Really Fumble?

Was Nehru’s action 55 years ago an unpardonable bungling or a clever diplomatic move to save India from ignominy and enmity of powerful nations?

Since long India has been fighting for a place as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). However, this struggle for a permanent UNSC seat is turning out to be a losing battle and would seemingly continue to be so for a variety of reasons for possibly many more decades to come. Before going into the pros and cons of the intriguing international situation, so vitally associated with the entry of a new permanent member to the UNSC, over a billion people in India reserve the right to question as to why the first Prime Minister of the country, Jawaharlal Nehru, refused the offer of a permanent UNSC seat made by the United States in 1955. Was it an unpardonable bungling by Nehru or a clever diplomatic move to save India from ignominy and enmity of powerful nations?

Very few people know that in 1955 the then US President Dwight David Eisenhower was caught in an unenviable situation of choosing between the People’s Republic of China under the Communist regime led by Mao Tse Tung and the then Formosa or the present Republic of China for a permanent seat at the UNSC. While Communist revolution was new and was beginning to find a firm footing in the Chinese mainland or the present People’s Republic of China, Washington’s blue-eyed boy Seng Kai Sek was compelled to find shelter in the island of Formosa after fleeing from the Chinese mainland. While the US was dead against Communist China becoming a permanent member of the UNSC, Eisenhower could clearly visualize that any offer made in favour of Formosa, then ruled by a fleeing dictator, would be vehemently opposed by other permanent members of the UNSC, more particularly by the then Communist USSR.

With the Cold War between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries being the order of the day in 1955 and India maintaining equidistance from both the blocks, perhaps President Eisenhower thought it prudent that India could fit into the permanent Asian seat in the UNSC, and accordingly the offer was made.


On the other hand, reports indicate that the then Communist USSR, a permanent member in the UNSC, mounted pressure on New Delhi to vouch for Communist China for the permanent Asian seat in the UNSC, promising that an elusive sixth UNSC permanent member seat to be offered to India in the coming years.

Today, 55 years later, as New Delhi runs from pillar to post for a permanent member seat in the UNSC, a review of Nehru’s decision to go by Moscow’s persuasion and plea in favour of China for a permanent UNSC seat could be of great significance. Perhaps a leader with lesser understanding of the then international scenario would have jumped to the conclusion of saying ‘‘Yes’’ to the US offer and possibly would have landed up biting dust. The crux of the matter at that point of time was the Cold War. The US, UK and France openly belonged to one block while of the Warsaw Pact countries USSR was the sole member in the UNSC. Moscow’s gameplan was obviously to have another Communist power as a permanent member in the UNSC to face the challenge of the NATO even within the security council. And hence the pressure on New Delhi to surrender the US offer in favour of China.


Any observer with adequate knowledge of the raging Cold War and the international scenario in 1955 would agree that Washington’s offer of a permanent UNSC seat could never ensure India a cake walk into the Security Council. With every permanent member enjoying veto power it was clear as daylight that any proposal for the fifth member’s name made by a member of one block would be vetoed by the member(s) of the other block. Accordingly, in the face of a standing US offer, possibly Nehru could see through the Soviet gameplan of vetoing any member’s name till China made the entry into the Security Council as the permanent member from Asia. Perhaps realizing a near impossible task of making way to the Security Council with the two Cold War blocks calling the shots in tune with their confrontation, Nehru possibly could clearly visualize the ineffectiveness of the US offer and hence turned down the offer.

Another reason why Nehru possibly rejected the US offer could possibly be to maintain friendly relations with all countries, regardless of blocks, or at least not to incur the wrath of any country, more particularly powerful nations. Perhaps Nehru was highly convinced that the American gameplan would come a cropper, leaving India to bite dust while relations with the Soviet Union and China would deteriorate to an all-time low. With the situation ensuring an almost certain fall and ignominy, it was only natural for New Delhi to reject the US offer. After all, any fool can aim for the moon, but the wise and the intelligent would always consider if a greater risk of crash-landing or still worse nose-landing could be on the cards. And certainly Nehru did not want to see India crestfallen after fighting a losing battle.

Meanwhile, much water has flowed down the Mississipi, the Volga, the Ganga and the Yangtze Kiang in the last 55 years. Looking back now, nothing perhaps is as easy as criticizing Nehru for giving up the Security Council permanent member seat even by one without any knowledge of the Cold War that raged for decades together till the Soviet Union collapsed in the eighties.


However, it is most unfortunate and ironic that today China is apparently turning out to be a mighty roadblock in India’s quest for a permanent seat in the UNSC. Likewise, the United States also has a different gameplan. Washington would not like to offend Pakistan, one of its frontline buyers of arms and other goods, by supporting India in the matter of a permanent seat in the UNSC. Ironically, today India can almost be certain of Moscow’s support among the powers enjoying veto in the Security Council. However, with raging turbulence than ever before on all fronts in the international arena, one can never be sure as to how many more decades India may have to wait for an opportune moment to enter the Security Council as a permanent member or if a UNSC permanent seat would remain an elusive dream for this nation for all times to come.

Blunder of the millennium for India : Second part

Nehru rejected the UNSC offer by the then US President Dwight David Eisenhower in 1955.



Very few people know that in 1955 the then US President Dwight David Eisenhower was caught in an unenviable situation of choosing between the People’s Republic of China under the Communist regime led by Mao Tse Tung and the then Formosa or the present Republic of China for a permanent seat at the UNSC. While Communist revolution was new and was beginning to find a firm footing in the Chinese mainland or the present People’s Republic of China, Washington’s blue-eyed boy Seng Kai Sek was compelled to find shelter in the island of Formosa after fleeing from the Chinese mainland. While the US was dead against Communist China becoming a permanent member of the UNSC, Eisenhower could clearly visualize that any offer made in favour of Formosa, then ruled by a fleeing dictator, would be vehemently opposed by other permanent members of the UNSC, more particularly by the then Communist USSR.


With the Cold War between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries being the order of the day in 1955 and India maintaining equidistance from both the blocks, perhaps President Eisenhower thought it prudent that India could fit into the permanent Asian seat in the UNSC, and accordingly the offer was made.





Ironically, around 1955, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was offered the disputed Chinese Permanent Security Council seat by the US to keep out the People’s Republic of China, and he also was sounded out by the USSR Prime Minister, Nikolai Bulganin, to allow China to take this seat while giving India a sixth permanent seat in the Security Council. Nehru rejected this offer in deference to China. History may have been different if this offer had been subjected to serious negotiations. Now, 54 years later, we are struggling for this seat.

the statements made by the two people at that time

NEHRU:Perhaps Bulganin(USSR president at that time) knows that some people in USA have suggested that India should replace China in the Security Council. This is to create trouble between us and China. We are, of course, wholly opposed to it. Further, we are opposed to pushing ourselves forward to occupy certain positions because that may itself create difficulties and India might itself become a subject to controversy. If India is to be admitted to the Security Council, it raises the question of the revision of the Charter of the U.N. We feel that this should not be done till the question of China’s admission and possibly of others is first solved. I feel that we should first concentrate on getting China admitted. What is Bulganin’s opinion about the revision of the Charter? In our opinion this does not seem to be an appropriate time for it.

Bulganin: We proposed the question of India’s membership of the Security Council to get your views, but agree that this is not the time for it and it will have to wait for the right moment later on. We also agree that things should be taken one by one.

Blunder of the millennium for India

It is an irony that India first rejected the UNSC(United Nations Security Council) seat and is now begging for it.
When the USA, UK and Soviet Union were willing to give UN Security Council's permanent membership to India in 1955, Nehru rejected the offer and suggested it should go to China.

"He (Jawaharlal Nehru) rejected the Soviet offer to propose India as the sixth permanent member of the Security Council and insisted that priority be given to China's admission to the United Nations"
S. Gopal: Jawaharlal Nehru;
Volume II; page 248.

From the Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru , Series II, Volume 29, Minutes of meeting with Soviet Leaders, Moscow ,22 June 1955, page 231, here are the minutes of the conversation between Jawaharlal Nehru and Soviet Premier Marshal Bulganin, as quoted in Claude Arpi's Born in Sin: The Panchsheel Agreement (Mittal Publications, Delhi, 2004, ISBN 81-7099-974-X):
'Bulganin: While we are discussing the general international situation and reducing tension, we propose suggesting at a later stage India's inclusion as the sixth member of the Security Council.
Nehru: Perhaps Bulganin knows that some people in the USA have suggested that India should replace China in the Security Council. This is to create trouble between us and China. We are, of course, wholly opposed to it. Further, we are opposed to pushing ourselves forward to occupy certain positions because that may itself create difficulties and India might itself become a subject of controversy. If India is to be admitted to the Security Council it raises the question of the revision of the Charter of the UN. We feel that this should not be done till the question of China's admission and possibly of others is first solved. I feel that we should first concentrate on getting China admitted.'
Those were the halcyon days of Hindi-Chini-bhai-bhai. To paraphrase Jyoti Basu, in hindsight, this was a 'historic blunder'. India has wasted incredible amounts of energy trying to rectify this blunder and get itself into the Security Council. But it's quite apparent that if India ever gets a seat it will be a worthless seat. It reminds me of Woody Allen's] observation that he'd never want to be a member of any club that would actually admit him.
Again, going back to the NPT as well as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it hasn't particularly hurt India that it has stayed outside these discriminatory treaties, despite much wagging of fingers by others. Similarly, certain neutral States have remained outside the UN: if I am not mistaken, Switzerland famously doesn't join anything, and is not a UN member. Just as Norway has refused to join the European Union.
India has been over-eager to join various motley crews, for instance the banana-republic kaffeeklatsch of the Non-Aligned Movement. Championing various causes for the 'Third World' may have given an ego-boost to certain Indians, but it won India no brownie points. For instance, a resolution condemning India for intervening in the genocide in the then-East Pakistan in 1971 won by a resounding 104 votes to 11. So much for NAM gratitude to India, a pious fiction believed only by South Block. Similarly ungrateful is the UN.
On top of all this is the enormous waste of the UN bureaucracy. By latching on to the generous mammaries of the UN welfare state, many consultants have become wealthy. Graham Hancock's damning 1989 expose, Lords of Poverty: The Power, Prestige, and Corruption of the International Aid Business, estimated that most of the $60 billion plus that comprised governmental, UN, and World Bank or IMF-type 'aid' was siphoned off. Mostly by elites in poor nations with their Swiss accounts, special interests (like agribusiness in donor countries, which dump their subsidised excess produce), but also, startlingly, the aid agencies' own personnel budgets, which waste as much as 80 per cent of the funds for lavish (first-class) travel, salaries, and perquisites. Similarly with the UN's extremely generous salaries and benefits.
Is there any good reason to keep on paying through the nose for a body that doesn't do India any good or give India any respect?
It's time for India to say, 'We're out of here!' if the UN continues to treat it shabbily. The return on investment to India of being in this failing body is not high; it is falling apart anyway under the weight of its own internal contradictions. Therefore, India should give the UN an ultimatum, and walk out if it is not satisfied.