India
2017 Country Review
http://www.countrywatch.com
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
1
Country Overview
1
Country Overview
2
Key Data
3
India
5
Middle East
6
Chapter 2
8
Political Overview
8
History
9
Political Conditions
23
Political Risk Index
79
Political Stability
93
Freedom Rankings
109
Human Rights
120
Government Functions
124
Government Structure
126
Principal Government Officials
133
Leader Biography
136
Leader Biography
136
Foreign Relations
137
National Security
170
Defense Forces
173
Appendix: Kashmir
174
Chapter 3
191
Economic Overview
191
Economic Overview
192
Real GDP and GDP Per Capita
195
Nominal GDP and Components
199
Government Spending and Taxation
201
Money, Prices and Interest Rates
204
Trade and the Exchange Rate
206
The Balance of Payments
207
Real GDP and GDP Per Capita
209
Nominal GDP and Components
212
Government Spending and Taxation
214
Money, Prices and Interest Rates
217
Trade and the Exchange Rate
219
The Balance of Payments
220
Real GDP and GDP Per Capita
222
Nominal GDP and Components
225
Government Spending and Taxation
227
Money, Prices and Interest Rates
230
Trade and the Exchange Rate
232
The Balance of Payments
233
Real GDP and GDP Per Capita
235
Nominal GDP and Components
238
Government Spending and Taxation
240
Money, Prices and Interest Rates
243
Trade and the Exchange Rate
245
The Balance of Payments
246
Economic Performance Index
248
Chapter 4
260
Investment Overview
260
Foreign Investment Climate
261
Foreign Investment Index
265
Corruption Perceptions Index
278
Competitiveness Ranking
289
Taxation
298
Stock Market
299
Partner Links
300
Chapter 5
301
Social Overview
301
People
302
Human Development Index
306
Life Satisfaction Index
310
Happy Planet Index
321
Status of Women
330
Global Gender Gap Index
334
Culture and Arts
343
Etiquette
343
Travel Information
347
Diseases/Health Data
357
Chapter 6
363
Environmental Overview
363
Environmental Issues
364
Environmental Policy
365
Greenhouse Gas Ranking
367
Global Environmental Snapshot
378
Global Environmental Concepts
389
International Environmental Agreements and Associations
403
Appendices
Bibliography
427
428
Country OverView
Pending
Chapter 1
Country Overview
India Review 2017
Page 1 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Country Overview
INDIA
India is the largest democracy and second most populous country in the world. Its history dates
back to 2500 B.C.E., when the inhabitants of the Indus River valley developed an urban culture
based on commerce and sustained by agricultural trade. Aryan tribes from the northwest infiltrated
onto the Indian subcontinent about 1500 B.C.E., bringing the indigenous beliefs that evolved into
Hinduism, and various empires followed. Arab incursions starting in the 8th century and Turkic in
the 12th were followed by those of European traders beginning in the late 15th century. By the
19th century, Britain had assumed political control of virtually all Indian lands. Nonviolent
resistance to British colonialism led by Mohandas Gandhi brought independence in 1947, and
Pakistan was established as a separate Muslim state because of Muslim-Hindu hostilities. There
have been three wars between India and Pakistan since 1947, two of them over the disputed
territory of Kashmir. A third war between the two countries in 1971 resulted in East Pakistan
becoming the separate nation of Bangladesh. India is now one of the fastest growing economies in
the world with a large skilled workforce. The country has a burgeoning urban middle class and has
made great strides in fields such as information technology. However, India's economic growth
remains constrained by inadequate infrastructure, bureaucracy, labor market rigidities, and
regulatory and foreign investment controls. About 60 percent of the population is still living close
to, or below, the poverty line.
India Review 2017
Page 2 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Key Data
Key Data
Region:
Asia
Population:
1251695616
Climate:
Varies from tropical monsoon in south to temperate in north.
Languages:
English
Hindi
Bengali
Telugu
Marathi
Tamil
Urdu
Gujarati
Malayalam
Kannada
Oriya
Punjabi
Assamese
Kashmiri
Sindhi
Sanskrit
Currency:
1 Indian rupee (Rs) = 100 paise
Holiday:
Anniversary of the Republic is 26 January (1950), Indian Independence Day
is 15 August, Gandhi Jayanti is 2 October
Area Total:
3287590
Area Land:
2973190
India Review 2017
Page 3 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Coast Line:
India Review 2017
Pending
7000
Page 4 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
India
Country Map
India Review 2017
Page 5 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Middle East
Regional Map
India Review 2017
Page 6 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
India Review 2017
Page 7 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Chapter 2
Political Overview
India Review 2017
Page 8 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
History
Introduction
In many senses, India shares significant portions of ancient history with the other cultures and
people of the Indian sub-continent, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri
Lanka. Surrounding powers from as far as Greece, eastern Europe, Arabia and Persia have also
played a role in India's history. The more recent history of India -- prior to independence in 1947 -is shared with the countries of the Indian sub-continent, and it heavily influenced by the colonial
power of Great Britain. Likewise, in geopolitical terms, India also shares a political legacy with the
countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Ancient Indian Civilizations
Though the origin of civilization in India is of the same date as several others like Egyptian,
Sumerian and Chinese, India is the only country that has been able to keep a continuous and
unbroken link with its past. As a result, the Indian culture has enriched over the past five millennia,
accumulating knowledge and experiences from each passing generation.
The people of India have had a continuous civilization since before 2500 B.C.E., when the
inhabitants of the Indus River Valley developed a sophisticated urban culture based on commerce
and sustained by agricultural trade. During its time, the Indus Valley civilization was the largest
civilization of humans. At its prime, it covered an area of over 1.5 million square kilometers,
almost half the size of today's India.
The civilization, best known by its city centers of Harappa, Mohen-jo-daro and Lothal (in presentday Pakistan), was an impressive civilization. It was especially well known for its town planning
and science and technology, which made it the most advanced human civilization of the period,
which had also seen Egyptian, Sumerian and Chinese civilizations. And unlike its contemporary
civilizations, the Indian civilization was by far the largest civilization, spread over an area that
extended from the eastern borders of Iran in the west right up to eastern India in the east.
The civilization is believed to have possessed the high quality architectural and town planning skills.
India Review 2017
Page 9 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The towns had broad and straight streets, flanked by houses built of burnt brick on either side. The
houses had an open courtyard, private wells and bathrooms. The drainage systems of the towns
are amongst the most striking features of this civilization. Pottery pipes attached to the outer walls
of the houses carried the wastewater and refuse from the houses to the large street drains, made of
stone and carefully cemented and waterproofed with asphalt. Even the common bath and wash
facilities like public tanks were lined properly in order to avoid water leaching.
The civilization boasted of several ports and had contacts with various parts of the world. This is
borne out by the discovery of Indus valley civilization coins and pieces around the world,
especially in West and Central Asia and Southern Europe.
Despite its distinctive development, however, the Indus valley civilization suddenly ceased to exist.
Scientists are still debating the possible causes-which could be a sudden natural calamity like a
devastating flood or an earthquake.
The Ascendancy of Cultures and Civilizations from the West
In its wake came the Indo-Aryans, an ethno-linguistic group with origins of almost the entire
population of today's Europe and south Asia. It was during this period that some of the oldest
surviving works of Indian literature and religious scripture were composed. Of these works, the
Rig Veda is principally recognized as the oldest book in the world. The Indo-Aryan civilization,
too, kept up the contacts with the outside world. This civilization, like its predecessor, flourished
and hence, often invited unwelcome attention from invading forces, which were attracted by the
stories of wealth in the Indian sub-continent.
Towards the end of 500 B.C.E., the northwestern part of the sub-continent became susceptible to
attacks from the enemies. Due to the Himalayas in the north and the sea all around south and deep
jungles on the east, the Indian subcontinent was vulnerable to foreign attacks only from the
northwestern part, a fact that had led to several drastic changes in the history of this region. In 522
B.C.E., Persian Emperor Darius I became the first foreign king to lead an attack on India,
capturing Punjab and Sindh relatively easily. This small region was a critical victory for the
Persians, because of its contribution of 10 tons of gold each year as tribute to the Persian Empire.
The great city of Takshashila became the capital of the Indian sub-continent territory under the
reign of the Persian King, Darius I.
For over 200 years, the area remained under nominal Persian control. Around 330 B.C.E.,
however, Greek Emperor Alexander defeated Persian King Darius III and took control of the
Persian Empire. He, too, was attracted to the wealth and prestige of the Indian sub-continent and
in 326 B.C.E. he entered Punjab. Although Alexander managed to capture chunks of Punjab, his
travel-weary army soon tired of the wars and mutinied, forcing Alexander to return to Greece.
India Review 2017
Page 10 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The Birth of New Religions
Meanwhile, the 6th century B.C.E. saw the birth of two important religions-Buddhism and Jainism.
(Note that India is also the birthplace of the world's oldest major religion - Hinduism). The
founders of both the religions of Buddhism and Jainism were born around the same time and in the
same part of India-today's Bihar state. Both were born in noble families and they both were
married.
Mahavir-the founder of Jainism-was born in the Lichavi Kingdom and had connections with
Bimbisar, the ruler of Magadh Empire (mentioned in the next sub-section). At the age of 30,
Mahavir abandoned the worldly ties and spent next 12 years in a life of severe austerities. He
attained enlightenment at the age of 42 and continued to preach until his death at the age of 72,
perhaps in the year 527 B.C.E. By the time of his death, however, Jainism was firmly established
as a religion in India, with over 14,000 monks and nuns taking up the task of spreading his
message.
Gautam Buddha, founder of Buddhism, was born in 563 B.C.E. in Lumbini to Maya and
Shudodhan, the rulers of the Kingdom of Kapilvastu. Buddha married his cousin Yashodhara and
had a son, Rahul. Buddha became increasingly disenchanted with the material world and
renounced his worldly possessions. He walked away from his kingdom, with barely his clothes on,
and for the next six years, lived in abject conditions, moving around with a begging bowl and
seeking salvation. He underwent prolonged fasts and made his body suffer extreme conditions.
After six years he realized the limits of these measures and looked deeper for true salvation. He
then took up the begging bowl again and moved from town to town. It was then he reached Gaya
in central Bihar, where he sat under a tree and pledged not to move until he obtained salvation. He
sat motionless and concentrated his mind fully and it was then that he attained nirvana or
enlightenment. He then began preaching, moving across large parts of India. At the age of eighty, in
483 B.C.E., Buddha passed away, his body was cremated and the relics were divided into eight
portions and buried, with stupas built over them.
The Re-emergence of Indian Power and Influence
By the time Alexander the Great returned to Greece in 323 B.C.E., Takshashila formed part of the
powerful Magadha Empire. With its capital in Patliputra, in present day Bihar, Magadha was the
first principal Indian empire, which has been recorded by the history.
Chandragupta took over the reigns of Magadha in 321 B.C.E., founding a new Mauryan dynasty.
India Review 2017
Page 11 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
His army was one of the strongest contemporary armies and rapidly captured several areas that
had been under the control of the Persians or Greeks for some decades. When Alexander's
successor Seleukus tried to recapture the lost territories, he was defeated swiftly and completely in
a battle that drove him back all the way to Syria. Once again, the Hindu Kush Mountains in the
northwest (present-day eastern Afghanistan) became the external boundaries of India.
Chandragupta also constructed a huge road, the Royal Road, which extended all the way from
Takshashila to Patliputra, covering a distance of nearly 2000 km. Chandragupta was advised by his
political mentor Kautilya, who perhaps wrote "Arthashastra" - the world's first treatise on the
business of politics. The kingdom was extremely well-organized and administered in a very
professional manner, run by a supreme council of 8 ministers. Besides building roads that helped
his large army to move swiftly across the entire empire, Chandragupta also paid special attention to
irrigation of land and to local government. Each city had its own local government run by a
municipal board, looking after all the requirements of the urban life.
In 296 B.C.E., Chandragupta gave up the throne to become a Jain monk and was succeeded by his
son Bindusar, who himself was an able military general. He expanded the kingdom further and also
kept up the contacts with the external world-especially the Greeks. It is Bindusar's son who
dominates Indian and global history like few others. Ashoka ascended the throne in 270 B.C.E.,
nearly 4 years after the death of Bindusar. He also fought several wars and took the Mauryan
Empire to its greatest heights. This is the first recorded instance where the entire subcontinent,
along with Afghanistan, parts of Iran, Tibet, and Burma formed part of a unified empire.
In the 12th year of his reign, Ashoka fought his last battle-capturing the small rebel state of Kalinga
(today's Orissa state on the eastern coast of India). The battle for Kalinga took a heavy toll, with
over 200,000 casualties. The conquest proved to be a decisive turning point in Ashoka's life.
Remorseful at the damage caused by his aggression, he turned to Buddhism. He renounced war
and aggression and became the biggest protagonist of Buddhism. He sent his emissaries all over the
world - including Sri Lanka, Greece and Syria. His own son and daughter were sent as emissaries
to Sri Lanka, where they spent rest of their lives preaching Buddhism. As an emperor, Ashoka
spent most of his time in pious activities.
He set up thousands of monasteries, stupas and temples for the spread of Buddhism, which was
the state religion, even though all other religions were also respected. Even today, thousands of
stupas bearing Ashoka's inscriptions exist all over India.
Ashoka died in 232 B.C.E. and was succeeded by his grandson. The great Mauryan dynasty did
not survive long after, however, and was replaced in a palace coup in 184 B.C.E. The successors
were nowhere as strong as the Mauryans and the decline of this central power made India's
northwestern region once again vulnerable to foreign attacks.
India Review 2017
Page 12 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Invading Powers
In the 2nd century B.C.E., Greeks from Bactria, who were in turn displaced by Scythians or Sakas
from Central Asia around 80 B.C.E., captured the area. The first Saka king took control of
Takshashila and his successor expanded the empire to cover north, western and central India. The
Saka rule continued for over 3 centuries until 320 C.E. when another great Indian empire took
birth with the ascendance of another Chandragupta to the throne.
The Golden Age
Chandragupta established a rather modest kingdom extending from Pataliputra to Prayag. His son
Samudragupta, who succeeded him, was a military genius and carried out conquests non-stop for
over three years, which saw the emergence of a kingdom very similar to Ashoka's in size and
geographic range. He governed for over 50 years and was a very gifted, multifaceted king who
could also play music and write poetry.
In 388 C.E., his son, Vikramaditya, who further extended the kingdom, especially in the turbulent
western and northwestern parts, succeeded Samudragupta. Vikramaditya's reign has been well
recorded by a Chinese traveler Fa Hian who arrived in India during Vikramaditya's rule. Fa Hian
spent six years in India, traveling, studying Sanskrit and visiting monasteries and other holy places.
Fa Hian, whose works have survived, has left glowing records of Vikramaditya's reign.
The Gupta period is also called the Golden Age of India. People were prosperous, the government
and administration very well organized, light taxes and several facilities like free hospitals for
humans and animals, great tree-lined highways criss-crossing the entire land with several resthouses that offered free lodging and boarding. The period also saw construction of some of the
best pieces of architecture, largely temples, many of which still survive.
Vikramaditya died in 415 C.E. and was succeeded by Kumargupta I, who reigned for nearly 40
peaceful and prosperous years. However, when his successor Skandagupta took charge in 455
C.E., India was about face its most turbulent time yet. The Huns from Central Asia and China had
been ravaging large parts of the world, having captured most of Europe and central and western
Asia. They had been in control of Afghanistan for some time now and had been trying to push into
India. The push began finally during Skandagupta's reign. The Guptas recorded initial victories,
managing to beat off the hordes of Huns, however, this momentum did not continue for long.
Invasion of the Huns
India Review 2017
Page 13 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Meanwhile, during this period, Skandagupta died. This was a blow that the Indian empire could not
withstand at such a crucial time, resulting in the Huns' invasion of India and the capture of large
parts of northern India. Unlike the previous invaders - Persians or Greeks - who had brought
elements of civilization and culture and did not go about destroying everything in their sights, the
Huns brought only devastation with them. Luckily the Huns were driven out in less than 75 years
when several Indian armies got together and fought them off.
Cultural Revival
After the Huns, India once again witnessed a period of peace and prosperity. Yet another notable
king emerged during this period - Harsh Vardhan. He consolidated large chunks of India once again
into a unified kingdom and restored dignity to the people. During his life, literature, architecture,
arts and other cultural activities prospered, as Harsh was very generous and supportive of these
activities. Once again, a Chinese traveler Yuan Chwang recorded his life and the kingdom that he
governed. The works give an important glimpse into life in India at that time since Chwang traveled
widely all over the country and tried to depict as accurate a picture as possible.
In 648 C.E., after nearly 50 years of rule, Harsh died and once again India collapsed under the
burden of several split kingdoms that sprung up soon after his death. The weak kings continued to
wage battles against each other, sapping their energies, without any regard to the developments in
the outside world, where another grave challenge for Indian security was building up. Once again
the danger came from the West.
Invading Forces and Islamic Influence
By 710 C.E., the Arabs had captured almost all of West Asia and large tracts of southwestern
Europe as well. In 712, they invaded Sindh province and captured it due to infighting amongst the
local kings. The Arabs, though, did not advance beyond Sindh, but kept it under their control for
the ensuing 3 centuries. This invasion did not sufficiently signal a warning to the Indian kings, who
continued to plot against each other, and failed to consolidate their power against invading forces.
The domestic quarrels brought along other invaders, far more serious and crippling than the Arabs.
In the 11th and 12th centuries, invaders from eastern Iran and central Asia again poured into India,
taking advantage of the weak kingdoms with small, ill-equipped armies. If the Indian kings had
realized the dangers posed by these invaders and united, they could have beaten off the challenge.
However, they chose to use the foreigners to settle the domestic scores and soon the entire north
India was under the grip of the foreign rulers, who used it only for plundering the wealth of the
country and weakening its defenses even more.
India Review 2017
Page 14 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
In the beginning of the 11the century, northern Sindh fell Mahmud of Ghazni, the Turkish ruler
hailing from Ghazni in present day Iran, while southern Sindh was ruled by Hindu kings from
Rajputana and Gujarat. Ghazni, who had no interest in capturing India, raided the country several
times and destroyed cities, while carrying away a lot of wealth from the country. He was followed
in 1173 C.E. by Muhammed Ghauri, who now occupied the throne at Ghazni.
The aforementioned Arab conquest of Sindh also marked the first Islamic influence in India. The
Arabs and the Turks who followed them were quick to convert their subjects to Islam and after
several centuries of Islamic rule, the area had a Muslim majority. For almost 5 centuries, various
Islamic kings from various parts of Central and West Asia continued to raid India, lured by its
wealth. A disunited India, ruled by several kings of small kingdoms, could not resist the attacks,
which not only left large cities and villages devastated but also saw Indian wealth go into foreign
hands.
The Mughals: A Muslim Dynasty
This trend, however, came to an end in the early 13th century, with the establishment of a Muslim
dynasty in Delhi. The founder was Qutub ud din Aibak, a former slave who rose to become a
general in Muhammed Ghauri's Army. A succession of Islamic kings followed for the next 3
centuries, until the arrival of the Mughals in the early 16th century.
Babar, the first Mughal emperor, is supposed to have originated from the present day Afghanistan
and established the Mughal kingdom in 1526 C.E. For almost three centuries, Mughal emperors
ruled almost all of India and also recaptured the parts in northwest that had been taken over
Turkish or other invaders. Unlike the other Islamic rulers before them, the Mughals really made
India their home and contributed significantly to the country's architecture and literature. The
Mughal era is often compared with the Gupta era of earlier centuries for its contribution to the
country's literature, architecture and general wealth.
Developments in Southern India
The southern parts of India had remained largely untouched by foreign invaders throughout the
Indian history, until the beginning of the 19th century with the conquests by the colonizing
European powers.
At the end of the Mauryan dynasty after Ashoka, the southern half of India was controlled by the
Andhra kings, hailing from the southeastern parts of India. In the 2ndcentury B.C.E., an Andhra
India Review 2017
Page 15 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
king founded the Satavahana dynasty that ruled almost continuously until the 3rd century C.E. But
perhaps even before the Satavahana there existed kingdoms like Pandaya, Chola and Chera
kingdoms, which coincided with Ashoka's reign in the 4th century B.C.E. Kings from northern
India rarely subjugated these kingdoms. However, they continued to wage battles of supremacy for
more than one thousand years.
Interestingly, the southern Indian kings, though extremely powerful, rarely ventured to conquer
northern India and had drawn an invisible line at the Vindhya Mountains and Narmada River as the
northern limits of their territories. They did, however, manage to capture territories beyond the
Indian borders, with Sri Lanka and large chunks of southeast Asia being under their control from
time to time. Just as their northern counterparts did, the southern kings, too, devoted a lot of
attention to building marvelous temples and palaces all over, despite always being at war with each
other. During the war, temples were left untouched by the invading armies. Thousands of these are
still standing and in daily use by the devotees.
European Influence and British Rule
Meanwhile, during the Mughal rule, the first Europeans stepped on Indian soil and established their
posts. British traders arrived in South Asia in 1601 and established themselves in the east at
Calcutta. The Mughal Empire continued until the middle of the 19th century, by which time the
British and other foreign powers had started conquering chunks of India. By 1830, almost all of
India was under the British control. The opposition to the British rule took root even before the
British had firmly established themselves. Sensing the danger and applying lessons learned, several
Indian kings tried to come together and fight the British. Some also took help of the traditional
British rivals like the French in order to hold off the advance.
Nevertheless, it was only in 1857 that the first organized battle for independence took place. By
this time, most of India was under British control and the Indians had come to realize that the
British had managed to capture India only by dividing the country and playing one against the
other. Also in 1857, several Indian states joined hands, under the leadership of Bahadur Shah
Zafar, the last Mughal emperor, to stage a war against the British. Thousands of Indian soldiers
serving in the British army too joined hands with the independence fighters and several critical
victories were registered. However, once again, the lack of total unity among Indians led to the
eventual victory of the British over the Indian armies. British rule prevailed in India.
The Emergence of Indian Nationalism
Though the British had won the immediate battles for supremacy in India, the seeds of a long
India Review 2017
Page 16 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
struggle for independence had already been sown. In the late 1870s, barely 20 years after the
battle, several Indian leaders like Gopal Krishna Gokhale, began speaking of total independence
from the British and emphasized the need for an organized movement to oust the colonial power.
In 1885, these leaders founded Indian National Congress, a movement that was eventually going to
lead India to its freedom in 1947.
A major drawback of the early nationalists was that the movement was confined to the few
educated Indians and the middle class and hence, it was concentrated around the major cities like
Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi. The earlier leaders also chose to function within the law and as a
result, their impact was limited and slow in spreading across the country. Gradually, however, the
Indian leaders were increasingly disillusioned with the British and began to press for the attainment
of Swaraj or freedom, which they realized could be achieved only by involving the masses in the
country's political affairs. They also began using popular festivals all over the country to spread
their new messages.
The Struggle for Independence
By the turn of the century, a firm foundation had been given to the freedom struggle, which had
now spread across large parts of the country, with the Congress clearly at the forefront of the
movement. The state of Bengal, which was relatively well educated, provided most of the human
capital and firepower for the struggle. Bengal's capital, Calcutta, also served as the national capital
during the period.
The British, realizing the difficulties of holding on to India, tried to divide the independence
movement. In 1905 under the pretext that the state was too big to be governed properly, they
divided the eastern state of Bengal, which was spearheading the independence movement. The
division was clearly based on religion with eastern Bengal being Muslim dominated while the
western part had a largely Hindu population. The division of Bengal immediately drew strong
protests from the Indians. Their argument was that if Bengal had to be divided at all, the British
should have begun by taking out the areas that were never really part of the state, such as Bihar
and Assam, which were culturally and linguistically different from Bengal. The intensity of these
protests worked to force the British to abandon their plans of division of Bengal.
Communal Differences
The British, nonetheless, had clearly formulated their strategy for keeping India under colonial rule.
They hoped that by sowing seeds of division between the two of the biggest communities of India,
they would be able to prolong their rule. They were helped to some extent by the fears of some
extremists in both the Hindu as well as the Muslim camps. Concerns about a Hindu-dominated
India Review 2017
Page 17 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Indian National Congress, the freedom movement's foremost organization, led some Muslim
leaders to form the All-India Muslim League in 1906. Many notable Muslim leaders, however,
stayed with the Congress.
Documents dating back to the late 19th century show the British strategy had been in the making
for sometime. Lord Dufferin, the British Viceroy of India between 1884 and 1888 was advised by
the secretary of state in London that "the division of religious feelings is greatly to our advantage,"
and that he expected "some good as a result of your committee of inquiry on Indian education and
on teaching material." A few years later, Lord Curzon (governor general of India 1895-1899 and
viceroy 1899-1904) was told by the Secretary of State for India, George Francis Hamilton, that
they "should so plan the educational text books (in such a manner) that the differences between
community and community are further strengthened." Thus, it was with the creation of the Muslim
League that the British saw their best chance to extend their rule in India.
Gandhi's Influence on the Independence Project
The British were faced with a formidable task in regard to retaining control over India. Their
strategy to keep India divided along communal lines was dramatically compromised with the entry
of a diminutive and frail person as one of the leaders of the Congress. On his return from South
Africa during the First World War, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi immediately plunged into the
independence movement. Very soon, he was to become the symbol of the independence
movement in India and a symbol of peaceful civil disobedience and other campaigns the world
over.
In 1919, the independence movement reached yet another level. The British had just enacted the
Rowlatt Act that allowed the government to arrest any person without the right to a trial. The Act
drew strong protests from all over the country. One such protest meeting was held at Jalianwala
Bagh in Amritsar, in Punjab, when over 10,000 people gathered in a small public square, enclosed
by walls from all four sides, with a small gate as the only exit point. While the protesters were
peacefully listening to their leaders, the British troops, led by General Dyer, shot and killed over
5,000 people. This tragedy was yet another turning point in the long struggle of independence, as it
outraged people all over the country and also sparked the extremists to join the independence
movement. The massacre was followed by a series of killings of senior British officials, including
General Dyer who was shot dead in the United Kingdom. The extreme elements of the
independence movement, however, were always under the shadow of the exponents of peace, led
by Gandhi.
In 1920, Gandhi launched the non-cooperation and swadeshi (indigenous) movement. It began
with renunciation of honorary British titles like 'sir" and "Lord" and spread soon to the boycott of
India Review 2017
Page 18 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
legislatures, elections and other Government institutions. Gandhi also emphasized that unless India
became self sufficient and stopped relying on the British for foreign goods, independence could not
be achieved. The swadeshi movement gathered strength and millions of Indians turned out in the
streets, burning their foreign produced goods and donning "khadi," which became a symbol of
nationalism.
The British, once again, cracked down heavily against the movement and within a year, all the
important leaders, except Gandhi, had been jailed. The movement came to an abrupt end in 1922
when it turned violent in February 1922 in Uttar Pradesh where some British nationals were killed
by extremists. Gandhi, who had always emphasized the importance of a peaceful campaign,
immediately called off the movement.
This measure notwithstanding, the military and economic pressures of World War I had made the
British departure imminent. The British though, tried to exploit divisions between the Hindus and
Muslims to the hilt, sowing the seeds of the idea of an independent Muslim country in place of the
idea of a unitary and independent India, which had been Gandhi's vision.
In 1927, the British tried to gain time by appointing the Simon Commission to review the Rowlatt
Act and also the general system of governance. Since the commission did not have a single Indian
member, the Congress decided to boycott the commission and once again a mass movement was
launched. The public outcry against the failure to appoint an Indian member to the commission
resulted in a boycott.
By this time, the Congress leadership had also realized the futility of waiting for the British to leave
and decided to accelerate the timetable for independence. In 1929, at its Lahore session, under the
guidance of Motilal Nehru -- the father of future Indian leader, Jawaharlal Nehru -- the Congress
adopted a resolution of "Purna Swaraj" (Complete Independence). At the session, the Congress
also chose the tricolour as the national flag of a free India. On December 31, 1929, the tricolour
was unfurled for the first time and it was decided to celebrate January 26, 1930, as Independence
Day every year.
At the same time, Congress also decided to launch the civil disobedience movement, with an aim
not to submit to British rule any longer. In tandem, Gandhi launched the famous Dandi march to
break the Salt Law, which restricted the production of salt only to the government. Although this
act was viewed with nonchalant disregard by the British authorities at first, it was intended to
demonstrate symbolic non-cooperation with British colonial governance. Thusly, on March 12,
1930, the march started from Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad and ended at Dandi on the coast.
The stretch of 375 kilometers was covered in 26 days. The march drew unprecedented response
all over the country, and indeed, across the Western world. Almost the entire of India joined the
campaign to boycott foreign goods and refuse to pay taxes. The British again resorted to brutal
force and about 90,000 people were imprisoned within a year, including Gandhi who spent over 7
India Review 2017
Page 19 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
months in prison.
Pre-Independence Developments
The British once again resorted to their traditional strategy of encouraging dissent from the ranks of
the Muslim League. In 1930, the Muslim League, under the leadership of its highly ambitious
leader Mohammed Ali Jinnah, declared that it was the sole representative of the Indian Muslims,
and that the Congress did not protect the Muslim interests. The League, professing fears of Hindu
domination, had advanced demands for special privileges in the proposed dominion government. In
the course of the resultant controversy, bitter Hindu-Muslim rioting ravaged many communities of
India. Adding to the misery and suffering of the common Indian citizens, the global economic
crisis, which had begun in 1929, completely disrupted the economy of India during the early
1930s. Some degree of peace was re-established due to the efforts of Gandhi who implored
Muslims and Hindus to refrain from acts of violence.
Meanwhile, the British invited the Congress to attend a "round table" conference in London to
decide the reforms in the governance system of India. The Congress boycotted the frist round table
conference held in 1930, however, the next year, the party agreed to participate and nominated
Gandhi to attend the discussions.
Gandhi's attendance and popularity in London notwithstanding, the second round table conference
was a failure, as no agreement was reached and the civil disobedience movement was revived. The
Congress again boycotted the third round of discussions but the British forged ahead and drew up
the Government of India Act, 1935. This was followed by elections to state legislative assemblies
in which the Congress won a comfortable majority in 7 of the 11 states that went to the polls. In
the first ever-popular test of the Muslim League's appeal among the Muslim voters, the party won
only a quarter of all the seats reserved for the Muslims.
These democratic changes did not last for long. In 1939, the British declared war on Germany in
the name of India as well, without consulting the Indian leaders. The Congress ministries resigned
in protest against this unilateral decision and resumed the civil disobedience movement, however,
the British continued to force India to contribute to the war effort. By the end of the war in 1945,
India had contributed over 1.5 million men as Allied troops and also paid over $12 billion for the
war expenses.
Meanwhile, the anti-British campaign continued and in March 1942, the British promised India full
independence at the end of the war and suggested the establishment of an interim Indian
government, with the British holding control of defense and foreign affairs only. These proposals
were rejected by both the Congress and the League. In the wake of the proposals' failure, a
massive movement, called "Quit India" was launched on August 9, 1942.
India Review 2017
Page 20 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The British reacted with unprecedented force. Gandhi, Nehru, and thousands of their supporters
were imprisoned, and the Congress was outlawed. The movement continued, however, and
bolstered with the moral high ground of Gandhian non-violence, the British now admitted that their
legitimacy was precipitously slipping and they could not hold on to power for much longer. They
declared their intention to launch negotiations with the leaders for the purpose of granting India
independence. In 1944, Gandhi was released from prison and along with Jinnah, he began
negotiations with the British.
A decade's worth of strife between Muslim and Hindu India began to show its effects in the 1940s.
The League told the Muslim elites in the Muslim majority states that they would be denied all
rights in a Hindu-dominated India and that only they-the Muslim League-could guarantee their
rights as Muslims. Then, in the 1945 provincial elections, the League ended up with almost half the
seats in Bengal, and it gained in Punjab, winning as many as the Unionist party, and thus pushed
the Congress to the third place in those regions. This political victory signaled the credibility of their
claim for partition and Muslim self-government.
It is noteworthy that although Jinnah and the Muslim League embodied the most powerful Islamic
voices in India, there were also several important Islamic theologians who were against partition.
Maulana Madani undertook a whirlwind tour to campaign against the League while representatives
of the Muslim working class were also against partition. The Ansari Muslims (weavers by
profession) who were very politically conscious and well-organized in Northern India publicly
demonstrated against the League's partition resolution also. These ought to have weakened the
claim of Muslim League that it was the sole representative of the Muslims in India, but the British,
by now actually eager to get out of India, accepted the League as the sole representative of the
Muslims.
Indian Independence
In June 1945, India became a charter member of the United Nations. In the same month the
British government issued a white paper on the Indian situation. The proposals, however, closely
resembled those, which had been rejected by both the Congress and the League. Another deadlock
developed, and during the second half of 1945 a new wave of anti-British riots and outbursts swept
over India. Three representatives of the British government made another attempt to negotiate an
agreement with Indian leaders in the spring of 1946.
Although the Muslim League temporarily withdrew its demands for the partition of India along
religious lines, insuperable differences developed with respect to the character of an interim
government. The negotiations were fruitless, and in June the British viceroy Archibald Wavell
announced the formation of an emergency "caretaker" government. An interim executive council,
India Review 2017
Page 21 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
headed by Congress' Jawaharlal Nehru and representative of all major political groups except the
Muslim League, replaced this government in September. In the next month the Muslim League
agreed to participate in the new government. Nonetheless, communal strife between Muslims and
Hindus increased in various parts of India.
By the end of 1946, the political situation in the subcontinent was on the brink of anarchy. The
British Prime Minister Clement Atlee announced in February 1947 that his government would
relinquish power in India no later than June 30, 1948. According to the announcement, the move
would be made whether or not the political factions of India agreed on a constitution before that
time.
Partition of India
Political tension mounted in India following the announcement, creating grave possibilities of a
disastrous Hindu-Muslim civil war. After consultations with Indian leaders, Louis Mountbatten,
who succeeded Wavell as viceroy in March 1947, recommended immediate partition of India to the
British government as the only means of averting catastrophe. A bill incorporating Mountbatten's
recommendations was introduced into the British Parliament on July 4; it obtained speedy and
unanimous approval in both houses of Parliament. Under the provisions of this enactment, termed
the Indian Independence Act, which became effective on August 15, 1947, India and Pakistan
were established as independent nations within the Commonwealth of Nations, with the right to
withdraw from or remain within the Commonwealth.
The new states of India and Pakistan were created along religious lines. Areas inhabited
predominantly by Hindus were allocated to India and those with a predominantly Muslim
population were allocated to Pakistan. Because the overwhelming majority of the people of the
Indian subcontinent are Hindus, partition resulted in the inclusion within the Union of India, as the
country was then named, of most of the 562 princely states in existence prior to August 15, 1947,
as well as the majority of the British provinces and parts of three of the remaining provinces.
Consequently, a bifurcated Muslim nation separated by more than 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles)
of Indian territory emerged when Pakistan became an independent country on August 14, 1947:
West Pakistan comprised the contiguous Muslim-majority districts of present-day Pakistan; East
Pakistan consisted of a single province, which, after gaining independence following a revolution in
1971, is now Bangladesh. The two sides-the Congress and the Muslim League were unable to
come to any agreement over the status of the highly contentious state of Jammu and Kashmir. The
issue was left unresolved at the time of the partition, leaving it up to the Maharaja of Jammu and
Kashmir to make a decision on whether to merge with Pakistan or remain with India.
The Maharaja of Kashmir was reluctant to make a decision on accession to either Pakistan or
India Review 2017
Page 22 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
India. Armed incursions into the state by tribesman from the North-West Frontier Province
(NWFP), however, led him to seek military assistance from India. The Maharaja signed accession
papers in October 1947 and allowed Indian troops into much of the state. The government of
Pakistan refused to recognize the accession and campaigned to reverse the decision. To this day,
the status of Kashmir remains in dispute. (See discussion under Foreign Relations).
India in the Early Years of Independence
On Aug. 15, 1947, after nearly a century of fighting the British, India obtained independence from
over two centuries of colonial rule. Congress leader and Mahatma Gandhi's close associate,
Jawaharlal Nehru, took over as the first prime minister of India. India became a republic after
promulgating its constitution on January 26, 1950, and the first fully democratic and free elections
were held in 1952, which saw a resounding win for the Congress.
Meanwhile, on Jan. 30, 1948, Gandhi was assassinated in New Delhi by a Hindu extremist
opposed to Gandhi's amicable approach to Muslims. This national tragedy effectively terminated
the celebration of independence and exacerbated the tensions between Hindus and Muslims.
Supplementary sources: IPCS, New Delhi, IDSA, New Delhi, A history of India by Gertrude,
Emerson and Sen. The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, The Times of India, New Delhi, rediff.com,
and indiainfo.com.
Note on History: In certain entries, open source content from the State Department Background
Notes and Country Guides have been used. A full listing of sources is available in the
Bibliography.
Political Conditions
The Political Legacy of the Congress Party
Following independence, the Congress Party ruled India for an unbroken spell of over 45 years,
with the exception of two brief periods in the 1970s and 1980s. Prime Minister Nehru governed
the nation until his death in 1964. Lal Bahadur Shastri succeeded Nehru; Shastri also died in office
in 1966 and the power passed to Nehru's daughter, Indira Gandhi, prime minister from 1966 to
1977. In 1975, beset with deepening political and economic problems, Gandhi declared a state of
India Review 2017
Page 23 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
emergency and suspended many civil liberties. Seeking a mandate at the polls for her policies, she
called for elections in 1977, only to be defeated by Moraji Desai, who headed the Janata Party, an
amalgam of five opposition parties.
In 1979, Desai's government crumbled under the weight of its coalition partners. Charan Singh,
who led one of the coalition partners, formed an interim government, on support from the
Congress Party. In fresh elections held in January 1980, the Congress under Indira Gandhi staged a
dramatic comeback. She ruled with her typical iron grip until her assassination in October 1984 by
her Sikh bodyguards. Her son, Rajiv Gandhi, was elected leader of the Congress Party to take her
place. He thus became the youngest prime minister of India at an age of barely 41 years. He led
the Congress to an unprecedented electoral victory in the elections held soon afterwards. Though
initially he proved to be a very popular prime minister, his government was soon involved in
several cases of alleged corruption, which led to his electoral defeat in the 1989 elections.
Defeating him was Janata Dal, a coalition of the opposition parties, united under the leadership of
V.P. Singh, a one-time lieutenant of Rajiv Gandhi.
The Janata Dal, which was supported by the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on the
right and the communists on the left, did not enjoy an extended tenure. Within 18 months, the
loose coalition collapsed and in November 1990, a breakaway Janata Dal group under Chandra
Shekhar formed the new government, with the support of the Congress Party. That alliance also
collapsed, resulting in national elections in June 1991.
On May 21, 1991, while campaigning in Tamil Nadu on behalf of his party, Rajiv Gandhi was
assassinated, allegedly by Tamil extremists from Sri Lanka. In the elections, Congress won 213
parliamentary seats and put together a coalition, returning to power under the leadership of P.V.
Narasimha Rao. He was the first Congress Party prime minister in 30 years who did not come
from the Gandhi/Nehru family.
Rao's Congress government served a full five-year term. This period marked the beginning of a
gradual process of economic liberalization and reform, which opened the Indian economy to the
globe. India's domestic politics also took a new shape, as divisions of caste, creed, and ethnicity
gave rise to a plethora of small, regionally based political parties. The final months of the Rao
government in the spring of 1996 were noted for several major political corruption scandals, which
contributed to the worst electoral performance by the Congress Party in its history.
Editor's Note: Priding itself as a secular, centrist party, the Congress has historically been the
dominant political party in India. Its performance in national elections steadily declined during the
1990s, however. In the fall 1999 elections (discussed below), the Congress Party suffered it worst
defeat in 50 years. But the party continued to hold power in some key states. It ruled Delhi,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Karnataka, besides several smaller states in the
northeast of the country.
India Review 2017
Page 24 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The Ascendancy of the Hindu Nationalists
The Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) emerged from the May 1996 national elections
as the single largest party in the Lok Sabha (House of the People), but without a majority in the
parliament.
The Hindu-nationalist BJP traditionally draws its political strength from the Hindi belt in the
northern and western regions of India. The party currently holds power in the states of Gujarat,
Uttar Pradesh (in coalition with several small parties), Himachal Pradesh (in coalition with
Himachal Vikas Congress), Haryana, Punjab and Orissa. Long associated as the party of the upper
caste and trading community, the BJP has received increasing support from lower castes in recent
state assembly elections.
Though the party did not enjoy a majority after the 1996 elections, it tried to form a new
government under Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, but it lasted only thirteen days before
resigning en masse.
With all political parties wishing to avoid another round of elections, a 14-party coalition led by the
Janata Dal emerged to form a government known as the United Front, under the former Chief
Minister of Karnataka, H.D. Deve Gowda. His government lasted less than a year, as the leader of
the Congress Party withdrew his support for the government in March 1997.
Inder Kumar Gujral replaced Deve Gowda as the consensus choice for prime minister, taking
office in April 1997 in a reshuffling of the United Front coalition. Prime Minister Gujral led an
extremely diverse and often unwieldy 16-party coalition government.
Kocheril Raman Narayanan won the presidential elections in July 1997. This was a significant
event because it was the first time Indians had elected a president who came from a Dalit or
"untouchable" background. (Note: As a constitutional republic, India's head of state is the president
and the head of government is the prime minister. See the sections on Government for further
information about the organizational structure.)
That same year the United Front government was confronted with a series of corruption and
criminal charges brought against high-profile officials. Faced with the responsibility of resolving
these and other pending issues, the government began to lose ground. In November 1997, the
Congress Party again withdrew support for the United Front and the government fell.
Shortly after, the Lok Sabha was dissolved on the premise that both the Congress Party and the
BJP were unable to establish an alternative coalition government. It was decided that Gujral would
continue as prime minister until new elections were held in early 1998.
India Review 2017
Page 25 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The Congress Party was in a chaotic state of affairs by the end of December 1997. Sonia Gandhi,
widow of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, agreed to help the ailing Congress by campaigning.
She quickly won the people's confidence and revived support for her Congress Party, but refused
to pursue actual parliamentary office.
In the February and March 1998 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP again won the largest number of
seats, 180, but fell far short of a majority. The Congress Party received 141 seats, and after the
elections, Sonia Gandhi became their new president. On March 15, 1998, President Narayanan
appointed Atal Bihari Vajpayee, parliamentary leader of the BJP, to try to form a coalition
government. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee took office on March 19, 1998. He led a diverse
and unwieldy 18-party coalition government. The coalition reflected the ongoing transition in
Indian politics away from the historically dominant and national-based Congress Party toward
smaller, more narrowly-based regional parties. This process has been underway throughout much
of the 1990s. In some southern states, such as Tamil Nadu, this process has been ongoing since the
1960s.
Prime Minister Vajpayee's government celebrated its one-year anniversary on March 19, 1999, and
lasted an additional month. The government fell on April 17, 1999, when it lost a vote of
confidence, called by Prime Minister Vajpayee, by only one vote (270 against the government to
269 for). The vote of confidence was precipitated by the April 14 withdrawal of the All-India Anna
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (ADMK), the second largest party in the governing coalition. The
BJP-led government's fate was sealed when the five members of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)
defected to the opposition.
Sonia Gandhi, leader of the opposition Congress Party, refused to try to form a multi-party
coalition government. She attempted to establish a minority Congress-led government, but failed to
obtain the necessary support from the other opposition parties in the Lok Sabha. Outgoing Prime
Minister Vajpayee was also unable to form a majority coalition. This situation prompted President
Narayanan to dissolve the Lok Sabha, based on the cabinet's recommendation, and call new
elections for September and early October 1999.
Italian-born Gandhi fended off a challenge to her leadership of the Congress Party in May 1999.
Three members of her own party, Tariq Anwar, Sharad Pawar and Purno Sangma, sent a letter to
Gandhi detailing why foreign-born citizens should not lead the Congress Party or become prime
minister. The three also called for a constitutional reform to prevent non-native-born citizens from
serving as prime minister. At first, Gandhi resigned her post as Congress Party president, but
withdrew her resignation after thousands of her supporters took to the streets; hundreds of
Congress Party officials resigned in protest; and Anwar, Pawar, and Purno were expelled from
Congress. The three soon formed their own party, the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). In late
July, Gandhi announced that she would stand in the fall elections.
India Review 2017
Page 26 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
In June 1999, in anticipation of the fall 1999 elections, the NCP formed an electoral alliance with
the Samajwadi Party, led by Mulayam Singh Yadav. The alliance was expected to fare well in both
Uttar Pradesh, where the Samajwadi Party is based, and in Maharashtra, because of Sharad
Pawar's connections to that state. Ideologically, the alliance is similar to the Congress Party with
whom the NCP broke, but claims to offer voters a "Third Front" option to both the Congress Party
and the ruling BJP. In July, the Congress Party formed an electoral alliance with ADMK such that
the two parties would not compete in the same constituencies.
Gandhi's campaign was based primarily on financial sector reform and job creation. Congress also
worked to sell her as a representative of the lower castes and the Muslim minority, which felt
alienated by the Hindu nationalist BJP. While her rallies were impressive, support for Sonia Gandhi
and the Congress Party failed to gain momentum in the face of its history of injustices against
Muslims (i.e. sterilization of Muslims under Indira Gandhi, its failure to prevent the 1992
demolition of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya), Sonia Gandhi's lack of experience as a politician, as
well as her late announcement that Congress may form a coalition government, if necessary. Given
the instability of the previous coalition government, this statement may have concerned potential
Congress supporters.
In the elections of fall 1999, the BJP and its 25 allies secured the majority with 299 of the seats,
followed by Sonia Gandhi's Congress Party and its allies with a disappointing 134 seats, its worst
performance in 50 years. The National Democratic Alliance's success was not sweeping but it did
gain more seats in parliament, as well as a more diverse group of supporters. This is most likely
due to the BJP's forming of several alliances with disparate parties, as well as its diminishing
emphasis on Hindu nationalism. Also, the BJP played up Vajpayee's responsibility for the growing
economy and the expulsion of Pakistani forces from Kargil in July. Vajpayee was re-elected prime
minister.
Sonia Gandhi did win both seats that she contested and took the seat in parliament representing
Amethi, Uttar Pradesh; held by both her late husband Rajiv Gandhi and her late mother-in-law
Indira Gandhi. Despite the poor showing of the Indian National Congress, Gandhi remained party
leader.
The elections, however, did not proceed smoothly. Rebel groups in the northern and eastern
regions called for a general boycott of the elections. The National Liberation Front of Tripura was
blamed for the kidnapping of sixteen government officials in September. On the third day of voting,
30 were killed in landmine attacks in Bihar and 10 more were killed in Kashmir when soldiers fired
on demonstrators. Thirteen more people died on the last day of voting in the northeastern regions
of Assam and Tripura.
The government's first challenge came just a few weeks after the elections when two cyclones
struck the eastern state of Orissa within two weeks ultimately killing at least 10,000 and leaving
India Review 2017
Page 27 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
nearly two million homeless. Both national and state governments came under criticism for being
unprepared in terms of money and procedure for such a disaster.
The primary focus for the new government was to keep India's economy on the upswing. To this
effect, the government has been pushing trade agreements with its neighbors, specifically Vietnam
and Myanmar. A piece of legislation was introduced in late November 1999 opening up the
insurance industry to private investors, including foreign companies. Though the proposal was
opposed by the Left parties and the insurance workers, the bill was approved.
India continued with the liberalization in the year 2000, opening up the domestic market for
imported goods in a significant way in the budget for the year 2000. It also signed several trade
agreements with its major trading partners like the European Union (EU) and the United States
(U.S.) for opening up the markets and encouraging foreign investments.
A Climate of Conflict from 2000-2001
The ever-volatile situation between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and Jammu took a turn for
the worse in the beginning of the year, with several terrorist attacks on civil as well as military
targets. However, July saw a major turning point, when Hizbul Mujahideen, the biggest militant
group, offered a unilateral cease-fire and expressed its desire to open negotiations with the Indian
government. The cease-fire offer was immediately accepted and the two sides began negotiations
on July 25, 2000. The negotiations, which were the first such talks between the government and
the militants, lasted for nearly two weeks. These talks broke down after Hizbul Mujahideen called
off the cease-fire and walked out of the peace talks in response to the Indian government's refusal
to involve Pakistan in the negotiations.
On the morning of Jan. 26, 2001, as India was celebrating its 51st Republic Day, a severe
earthquake, measuring 7.8 on the Richter scale hit large parts of Gujarat in western India. The
earthquake was one of the worst ever to hit India. It reduced several major towns in the Kutch
region of Gujarat to complete rubble, claimed over 30,000 lives and turned millions into being
homeless. The earthquake caused damage of over five billion dollars. International aid was
immediately rushed to the quake-affected areas and rescue efforts continued for over 10 days. The
process of rehabilitation was expected to continue for much longer. Nearly five months after the
quake, most quake-affected people were still living in temporary shelters, waiting for the
reconstruction of their homes, schools and offices to begin.
In March 2001, the government of Atal Behari Vajpayee was rocked again -- this time by a major
corruption scandal. In a sensational undercover operation, a news Web site exposed corruption in
the Defense Ministry and also among major politicians of the ruling coalition. Specifically,
India Review 2017
Page 28 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Tehelka.com (which means sensation in Hindi and Urdu), sent two of its reporters, armed with
hidden microphones and cameras, posing as representatives of a fictitious British company
interested in selling defense equipment for the Indian army. The two bribed their way through the
high levels of the army establishment in order to win the "contract." They also filmed president of
the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Bangaru Laxman, accepting 100,000 rupees ($2500) in cash in
return for a promise to help the two meet senior ministers in the government and for helping them
to bag the contract. The reporters also filmed the president of the Samata Party - another political
party that is part of the ruling coalition and whose leader George Fernandes was the defense
minister - accepting money in exchange for setting up meetings and help in getting the deal through.
The expose, one of the biggest such cases in the recent times, came as a big blow to the
government, which was almost on the brink of collapse following the revelations. The army
suspended nearly a dozen senior officials including a lieutenant general and several other officers
implicated in the scandal.
The opposition Congress Party seized the opportunity that the scandal offered by organizing huge
protests in various parts of the country, and by demanding the resignation of the entire Vajpayee
government. The government refused to resign, however, claiming that the entire case was a
conspiracy to destabilize India and it had been hatched in foreign countries by powers opposed to
India. The Congress leader, Sonia Gandhi, and the Congress Party carried the protests into the
halls of government, however, causing the work in the parliament to be severely disrupted. To add
to Bharatiya Janata Party's troubles, its own partners in the coalition, were getting uneasy about the
scandal and several of them openly called for heads to roll following the revelations. One coalition
partner, Trinamool Congress, which had allied with the BJP in the eastern state of Bengal, decided
to walk out of the coalition, narrowing the already-thin majority that the coalition commanded in
the lower house of parliament. Realizing that the opposition was not going to let go of the matter
and that its own partners may begin deserting, the government finally conceded some ground. Over
a week after the first revelations, defense minister George Fernandes resigned and the president of
the BJP, Bangaru Laxman, also resigned, even though he maintained his innocence. He was
replaced by another BJP stalwart, Jana Krishnamurthy, at the helm of the party.
The government also ordered an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation - a federal agency into the entire affair. The government, however, refused to order an inquiry into the matter by an
all-party team of members of the parliament. The opposition continued its protests inside and
outside the parliament, leading to a total suspension of any discussions or activities by the
lawmakers until the parliament went in for a recess in May.
That the scandal had hit the image and the fortunes of the ruling coalition became evident in the
elections to the four state assemblies that were held in May 2001. The ruling BJP and its allies lost
power in two of the states while the opposition parties maintained their grip on power in two
others. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, the ruling alliance of BJP and DMK, a major local
party, received a drubbing from an opposition alliance, which included Congress, the principal
India Review 2017
Page 29 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
opposition party in the parliament. The alliance won over three-fourths of the seats. In the
neighboring state of Kerala, the Congress again scored an emphatic victory, claiming over twothirds of the seats, though this time it had edged out the ruling Communist government. In the
north-eastern state of Assam, the ruling coalition of the BJP and AGP, a local party, was again
trounced, with Congress grabbing the majority in the house. To complete the rout, Congress and its
allies also installed themselves at the helm in the southern territory of Pondicherry.
Though the elections were for the state assemblies, their results were seen as the voters' verdict on
the federal government's performance as well. Though the BJP leadership tried to deny that the
vote was against the federal government, most analysts said that the huge losses suffered by the
BJP and its allies boded poorly for the federal coalition.
In April 2001, tensions flared up along the Indo-Bangladesh border in the northeastern state of
Assam. The border has never been clearly demarcated along some parts and this often leads to
tensions as border guards from both countries claim territories, as exemplified by minor clashes at
the border. These are highly localized and minor incidents that do not affect the bilateral
relationship. That said, in April, the fighting got out of hand and a total of 19 border guards- 16 of
them Indians - were killed in the worst clash ever between the two countries. Bangladesh troops
alleged that the Indian border guards were building a road in their territory and that led to the
dispute. The Indians on the other hand alleged that the Bangladeshi border forces had intruded into
India. The matter had the potential of exploding into a bigger dispute, derailing the improvement in
the bilateral relations that has been going on for the last five years. Both Bangladeshi and Indian
governments reacted with urgency in order keep the tensions low along the border and to ensure
that the fighting did not erupt again. The two sides immediately dispatched senior officials for talks
and formed a working group to demarcate the border and to end to any potential disputes.
Meanwhile, the situation in the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir remained complicated and
tense throughout 2000. The cease-fire offered in July 2000 by Hizbul Mujahideen, the largest local
militant group in the state, did not last long. Hizbul was under tremendous pressure from other
militant organizations, especially the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba, which had gone on to
sharply criticize the cease-fire and promised it would step up its own terrorist activities during the
cease-fire. India, however, tried to sieze the opportunity to launch peace talks with Hizbul and
other organizations in the state. The two sides held several preliminary meetings in order to lay
down a framework for negotiations and to take some confidence building measures. However, the
talks did not last long as Hizbul was pressured to call off the talks and return to arms. Some
divisions were identified within the Hizbul since its leadership in India was keen on talks while the
leaders based in Pakistan had firmly rejected the idea of talks. Finally, the Indian leadership of
Hizbul backed down and insisted on including Pakistan in the negotiations with the Indian
government, a condition that India firmly rejected. An impassed ensued as India had stated clearly
that it would not participate in discussions with Pakistan until it stopped aiding militancy in Jammu
and Kashmir.
India Review 2017
Page 30 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The end of peace talks meant a return to war in the state and the Indian security forces continued
to fight the militants for almost three months. In November 2000, India shifted its strategy by
announcing that during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Indian security forces would maintain
a unilateral cease-fire in their operations against the militants in the state. The cease-fire was
welcomed by the international community, including the United States and the European Union,
who also called upon the militants to reciprocate and hold off their own attacks. This call was
rejected by the militants who saw an opportunity to score significant victories against the security
forces. The cease-fire, which was initially planned for one month, was extended by the Indian
government on a monthly basis until May 2001. The militants, however, continued with their
operations and inflicted several casualties all over the state.
In May 2001, the government suddenly reversed its earlier stance. It called off the cease-fire,
saying that a unilateral move, not reciprocated by the militants, served little purpose. While the
calling off of the cease-fire was not a total surprise, the accompanying announcement certainly was
not anticipated. India expressed the desire to invite Pakistan's General Pervez Musharraf for talks
in New Delhi. Pakistan accepted the offer and the summit was scheduled for July 14-16, 2001, in
New Delhi. The summit was hailed by the international community, which hoped that it would
mark the beginning of a peace process.
The international community watched with great interest the developments leading up to a summit
in Agra and the outcome itself. Despite the inevitable build-up of expectations around the summit,
Indian leaders were cautious about the possible outcome of the meeting. In the days leading to the
summit, the contrast between the vastly different positions of India and Pakistan became
increasingly apparent.
The main source of contention between India and Pakistan during the summit focused on the
contentious problem of Jammu and Kashmir, which has been responsible for on-going conflict
between the two countries. Pervez Musharraf said that unless the two sides found a solution to
Jammu and Kashmir, the relations between them could not improve. India, on the other hand,
maintained that Jammu and Kashmir constituted a very difficult issue and that as no quick
resolution was in sight, the two countries should address other issues and improve bilateral relations
in the fields of trade, facilitating movement of people between the two countries and to reduce
tension on the border. India said that these improvements would go a long way in removing tension
between the two countries and lead to building of confidence between them.
Ultimately, the two positions were far too divergent for the Agra summit to yield any significant
results. The two sides were also unable to agree on a joint declaration. Though the failure of the
summit did not surprise anyone, the international community was worried that it would lead to an
escalation of tension in the region. India continued to blame Pakistan for fomenting terrorism in
Jammu and Kashmir, a charge denied by Islamabad, which said that it extends only moral and
India Review 2017
Page 31 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
political support to the "freedom fighters" in Jammu and Kashmir.
Then, on Dec. 13, 2001, in the most audacious act of violence to date, a group of terrorists
launched an attack on the Indian Parliament House in New Delhi. In the ensuing gun battle, 14
persons, including all the terrorists, were killed. The five terrorists, traveling in a stolen car,
breached the massive security cordon around the Parliament House building and reached the last
ring of security. When they were intercepted by the security forces, the terrorists jumped out of the
cars and tried to reach the Parliament building, firing from their AK-47 rifles and lobbying
grenades. None of the terrorists were able to make it to the building and were ultimately killed in
the battle, which also claimed the lives of seven Delhi policemen and two security personnel of the
Parliament.
An estimated 200 MPs, plus visitors and media personnel, were believed to be in the complex
when the attack broke out. Home Minister Advani and other senior ministers were moved to a
secure location within the Parliament complex in the immediate aftermath of the attack. The army
was called in and Black Cat commandos and police personnel were rushed to the spot. Security
was also enhanced at the residences of the prime minister, home minister and the leader of the
opposition. The federal government also asked the state governments to beef up security at key
installations and keep a close vigil on potential terrorist activities.
The attack horrified the nation as a whole, as well as the international community, which was
already reeling from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. Investigators
said that the terrorists planned to blow up the entire building as their car was laden with explosives.
The car bomb, however, failed to detonate and this forced the terrorists to come out of the car. A
similar attack carried out on the Jammu and Kashmir legislature building in Srinagar in October
2001 claimed 40 lives and caused widespread damage to the building.
The Indian government accused two Pakistan-based terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-eMohammad for the attack. Jaish-e-Mohammad had earlier claimed responsibility for the Srinagar
attack, but later retracted.
In a sharp speech, soon after the attack, India's Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee vowed a
"strong reaction to the attack on the most important institution of the world's largest democracy."
Vajpayee accused Pakistan of giving refuge to the two groups and threatened a strong response if
Pakistan did not cooperate by shutting down all terrorist bases on its soil. He asked Pakistani
President General Pervez Musharraf to shut down the camps, arrest their leaders and freeze their
assets. The speech led to heightened tensions between the two countries and a threat of war once
again loomed large over the highly unstable Indo-Pak border. Pakistani President Pervez
Musharraf, caught in a bind, said that there was no evidence that the two groups had been involved
in the attack and said that Pakistan would actively protect itself in case of any precipitate action by
India.
India Review 2017
Page 32 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Despite appeals of calm and restraint by all the major world powers, including the United States,
tension continued to mount between the two neighbors. Pakistan refused to accept Indian claims
that the two organizations had been involved in the attack on the Parliament. Pakistan suggested a
joint investigation of the attack, which met with an outright rejection by India. India's position was
somewhat vindicated when the United States placed the two militant organizations on its list of
terrorist organizations and urged all the countries to freeze their assets and clamp down on their
activities. Although Pakistan said it would act against the two organizations, India was not
convinced.
As tensions mounted, Pakistan cancelled leave for troops and recalled all its military personnel on
leave as part of a state of high alert that was declared soon after the attack on the Indian
Parliament. Pakistan also re-deployed its troops on the Line-of-Control in Jammu and Kashmir.
These troops had been unilaterally withdrawn in 2000 as a gesture aimed at normalization of
relations with India.
The situation was aggravated as both countries began massing their troops along the international
border in a show of strength. The cross border firing, which is normally restricted to the most
contentious parts of the disputed Jammu and Kashmir state, soon spread and intensified, leading to
dozens of deaths on both the sides. As tensions continued to mount, hundreds of civilians living
along the border began to flee the area, partly due to the intense shelling of the border areas by the
artillery on both sides of the border.
As the impasse on the political front continued, India decided to recall its high commissioner
(ambassador) in Islamabad, saying that the bilateral relations had reached an all-time low following
Islamabad's refusal to initiate action against the terrorist groups. In another significant scaling down
of bilateral relations, India also decided to shut down train and bus services between the two
countries. The services had been initiated in 1999 following the visit of Indian Prime Minister Atal
Behari Vajpayee to Pakistan. The Pakistan government criticized the Indian decision to recall the
high commissioner saying that diplomatic channels needed to be kept open, especially during times
of crises. It said it would not take any retaliatory measures, and keep its mission in New Delhi at
full level.
On Dec. 25, 2001, in an attempt to placate India, the Pakistan government placed Masood Azhar,
leader of Jaish-e-Mohammad, under preventive detention for a few days. The Indian leadership
was, however, not sufficiently impressed and demanded that Pakistan take real and meaningful
action against the terrorist groups working on its soil. The war clouds continued to hover over the
region, though most analysts believed that neither side would go all the way to start a war for two
main reasons: (1) the aggressor would quickly lose international support; (2) the respective
economies of India and Pakistan were not strong enough to support the huge costs of a war.
India Review 2017
Page 33 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Developments in 2002
Regardless of the pragmatic considerations detailed above, the pressure from the international
community continued to build. British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced a hurriedly organized
visit to India in the first week of January 2002. The visit was clearly organized in order try to calm
the nerves in New Delhi and Islamabad. Later, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell also
visited the sub-continent and encouraged restraint from both India and Pakistan. Cross-border
terrorism and the conflict over Kashmir and Jammu, however, continued to present major
obstacles to rapprochement between these two countries. As such, both countries continued to
escalate the deployment of troops along their borders.
Tensions were not limited to the geopolitical realm. Conflicts between Hindus and Muslims on the
domestic front also threatened the peace in India. On Feb. 27, 2002, a Muslim mob attacked a
train carrying Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) activists who were returning from the disputed holy
site of Ayodhya. The train was set on fire while it was passing through the town of Godhra,
causing several train carriages to be destroyed and burning victims (mostly Hindu VHP supporters)
terribly, and in many cases, beyond recognition. In total, 58 people, most of them Hindu activists,
had been killed. In the aftermath of the train attack, 21 Muslim men were arrested in the city of
Godhra, while about 700 were arrested across the state. Meanwhile 26 cities were placed under
curfew, and streets, businesses and schools across the state were closed.
The holy site in Ayodhya was under dispute because the VHP Hindu activist group planned to build
a temple in the same spot where a 16th century mosque was destroyed in Hindu-Muslim
communal violence back in 1992. Observers feared that the scenario would spark a repeat of
nationwide communal violence that occurred when the mosque was destroyed a decade ago.
On Feb. 28, 2002, a day after the train massacre, Hindu-Muslim communal violence erupted in the
state of Gujarat, leaving several hundred people dead. In Ahmedabad, the state's largest city, Hindu
mobs allegedly attacked Muslims, presumably to avenge the train attack the previous day. In these
"revenge" attacks, several scores of Muslims were burned alive. Several more people were shot by
police in the resulting chaos. The violence spread in the following days across the state and exacted
a death toll in the thousands. Included in the list of casualties are a former Congress member of
parliament, Ahsan Jafri, and his family, whose house was burned by a Hindu mob.
Political leaders in India condemned both sets of attacks, and asked the VHP not to continue their
plans to construct a temple on the site in Ayodhya, fearing that such provacative moves will only
serve to exacerbate rising tensions. The VHP, however, insisted that it would begin construction of
the temple in March, however that timeline was postponed pending Supreme Court judgement on
the issue, as well as rising public demands that the issue of the site be resolved amicably between
all interested parties. Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, cancelled his trip to
India Review 2017
Page 34 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
a Commonwealth summit to be held in Australia, and called for restraint, calm and an end to
communal violence. The situation placed the Prime Minister in vortex of competing interests.
While many opposition and coalition forces in government wanted him to prevent the escalation of
violence, he was also expected to work with Hindu hardline groups, such as the VHP, who were
helpful in consolidating his power. Such Hindu hardline groups were unlikely to respond to calls for
moderation and restraint.
Thus, questions were raised about the lack of effectiveness and responsiveness on the part of the
BJP government in dealing with the horrendous situation. Observers noted there was a marked
delay before the Indian army was called in to dispel the violence and indeed, to date, the
deployment of the army in this regard has been scant in the most volatile areas of India. Policemen
and other officials have also been implicated in the violence, as many observers have stated that
these officials watched as looting and killing ensued, taking no action to quell or control the
situation.
Although right-wing Hindu and nationalist voices suggested that the violence was simply an
unchoreographed reaction to the train massacre, some independent international analysts and
human rights groups believed that the government of the state of Gujarat was complicit in mass
violence against Muslims. In the midst of these criticisms, the government, led by Prime Minister
Atal Behari Vajpayee, refused to remove Gujarat's Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, a member of
the Prime Minister's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. Moti was accused by domestic and
international observers of tacitly supporting the murder of hundreds of Muslims. India's opposition
parties walked out of the Lok Sabha and marched to the presidential palace in protest over the
inaction by the government as well as various law enforcement officials and agencies. Then, on
May 6, 2002, the government expressed support for a measure in the upper house of the Indian
parliament establishing federal intervention in Gujarat, however, it remained steadfast in its refusal
to remove Moti from office.
It would appear that the BJP government went from being in a difficult position in the aftermath of
the Godhra attacks, when it was asking for restraint on the part of the Indian public and the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad (VHP) activists, to later being on the defensive for its own inaction as communal
violence escalated at a disturbing rate.
Meanwhile, tensions between India and Pakistan increased in the last week of February 2002, as
Pakistani ground troops almost shot down an air force AN-32 transport aircraft carrying Air
Marshal V K Bhatia, commander-in-chief of the Western Air Command, as he was inspecting the
Indian troops near Kargil in Kashmir. The plane made a forced landing at Leh Air base. Observers
speculate that Bhatia escaped certain death as in this case, the Pakistani troops used only antiaircraft guns and not US-made stinger missiles, as was the norm. The Indian military launched an
inquiry regarding the altitude of plane's flight and its proximity to the border.
India Review 2017
Page 35 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
In early May 2002, an attack on an army camp in Indian-administered Kashmir left 30 people dead
and a further, marked increase in tension between India and Pakistan. The two countries deployed
around a million troops along their respective borders, as well as the Line of Control that divides
Kashmir. In May 2002, both sides exchanged heavy artillery, shelling, and machine-gun fire across
the Line of Control. There were growing fears that a small spark could cause a major conflict to
erupt. Indeed, Pakistan also launched three short-range nuclear ballistic missile tests.
Pakistan's President Musharraf offered a speech, in conjunction with the missile tests. In response,
India's officials accused Pakistan of political posturing and military brinkmanship, however, they
insisted that India would not initiate a nuclear war. Indian officials have stated that India is
committed to its policy of no "first use" of nuclear weapons. For its part, India described Pakistan
as the "epicenter of international terrorism." In this regard, India charged that Pakistan provides
state support for the training of Islamic militant groups (including support for terrorist training
camps), which they believe are responsible for a series of recent attacks on Indian targets. Pakistan
denied these charges, stating that it simply provides "moral support" to various groups seeking selfdetermination for the people of the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir.
In early June 2002, as the situation between the two nuclear powers -- India and Pakistan -- heated
up, there were conflicting signals from India about whether or not it would resort to war. Some
reports suggested that officials were attempting to minimize the impression that war between the
two countries was imminent. Deputy Foreign Minister Omar Abdullah, however, rejected any shift
in India's hardline position on Kashmir, saying it would deal with cross-border terrorism in
whatever way deemed necessary.
International efforts to quell the tension were concentrated on the regional security summit in
Kazakhstan. With Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari
Vajpayee both attending the same conference, it was hoped that possible face-to-face talks would
facilitate a breakthrough between the two countries. Russian authorities played a key role in trying
to achieve this end. India, nevertheless, remained skeptical about any resolution until cross-border
terrorism, which it claims to be sponsored by the Pakistani state, is halted. In this regard, India
reportedly intercepted some communication from militant Islamic groups suggesting that Pakistan
had, indeed, ordered a halt in infiltration at the Line of Control. This admission from India was
regarded as a hopeful step in the direction of rapprochement, until remarks from the Foreign
Minister were uttered suggesting no relaxation of India's position.
Meanwhile, United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with officials from both
countries in an effort to diffuse tensions; his visit followed the visit of the United Kingdom's Jack
Straw to the region. United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Richard Armitage visited a week
later, on the heels of Rumsfeld. As well, foreigners were urged to leave India; a prior warning was
already issued for Pakistan.
India Review 2017
Page 36 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Just after Armitage's visit to the region and his speculation that tensions were easing between the
two countries, an unmanned Indian spy plane in Pakistani airspace was shot down. A Pakistani
representative expressed grave concern to officials in the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and
also prostested the violation of Pakistani airspace. The incident occurred around the same time as
more civilians and soldiers were killed by Pakistani troops in the Kashmir region. Indian officials
stated that Pakistani troops opened fire in the area of Kargil, where a previous battle had occurred
in 1999. More than 50 people died in the 10-day period leading up to the latest gunfire in Kargil.
Indian officials also arrested a Kashmiri separatist, thus incurring protests by Pakistan.
The gravity of the situation appeared to have sparked a breakthrough between India and Pakistan
in the second week of June 2002. In an optimistic move, Russian military experts declared that
they did not believe India and Pakistan would actually use nuclear weapons against each other. Not
only was it unlikely that such weapons would be in combat-ready condition, but the Russians
asserted the view that the deleterious effect on the developing economies of both countries was not
something that either party would likely risk.
On June 10, 2002, India reiterated a previously-stated view that there was a quantifiable reduction
in levels of infiltration of Pakistani militants across the Line of Control into Kashmir. The
acknowledgement occurred almost simultaneously with reductions of the levels of cross-border
shelling and violence. In another measure toward de-escalation, India also announced it was lifting
a flight ban on commercial Pakistani aircraft, which had been in effect since the attacks on the
Indian parliament six months before.
In July 2002, tensions between India and Pakistan reignited after an attack on a village in Kashmir
that left 27 people dead and more than 30 people injured. Preliminary investigations suggest that
the same group operating from Pakistan which carried out the attacks on the Indian parliament
several months ago, Lashkar-e-Taiba, may be responsible. Another Islamic militant group, Jaish-eMohammad, had also been implicated. The attacks occurred just before a scheduled visit from
United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, and United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Jack Straw,
whose respective trips to the region are intended to quell tensions over the Indian-ruled territory of
Kashmir, which is claimed by Pakistan. State elections were scheduled for later in the year and
although India promised some sort of retaliatory measures for the attacks, which they have
branded as "pure terrorism," some Indian officials also noted that attention -- for the moment -would be better spent on the election.
In September 2002, amidst sporadic bouts of violence in the troubled Indian-administered region of
Kashmir, polling stations opened for the four-day election. Kashmir's main separatist parties
boycotted the election, while Islamic militant and separatist groups stated they would disrupt the
event; they have also warned that anyone participating in the election would be killed. On the first
of the four polling days, five militant separatists were killed in the district of Poonch during clashes
with the Indian army. Earlier, a policeman had been killed in the same region and another
India Review 2017
Page 37 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
policeman was fired on by rockets elsewhere. Meanwhile, an attempt to murder the state's tourism
minister was almost accomplished when her vehicles hit a landmine close to her home in southern
Kashmir, and then gunmen ambushed her convoy. The minister survived the attack, however, two
members of her security detail were killed. The election itself garnered mixed voting, with higher
turnout levels in certain areas.
In aggregate, there were higher voter turnout levels than in past elections and many observers
hoped this development signaled a fresh beginning for Kashmir. Fears of violence and a history of
irregularities and voter-rigging, however, apparently kept the turnout levels low in border regions.
New electronic polling equipment was intended to allay fears about voter fraud, while the election
itself was attended by a cadre of foreign diplomats and observers.
The tension between India and Pakistan over Kashmir continued to simmer. While India accused
Pakistan of using terror and militant separatists to sabotage the election, Pakistan dismissed the
allegations along with the election itself, which it described as a farcical endeavor. As bilateral
tensions escalated, both India and Pakistan again tested nuclear missiles in early October 2002.
Finally released in mid-October 2002, the election results proved to be inconclusive. Members of
the Congress Party and the regional People's Democratic Party together won 36 seats in the 87member assembly and intended to meet in Srinagar for discussions. Meanwhile, the ruling National
Conference won only 28 seats.
Elsewhere in India, gunmen stormed a Hindu temple in the western state of Gudjarat, killing 25
people. Ironically, the temple belonged to the Swaminarayan movement -- a sect within Hinduism,
which teaches both practical spirituality and religious tolerance.
Meanwhile, on Sept. 29, 2002, there were clashes between militant Muslims and police in the city
of Bangalore resulting in the deaths of five militants and injuries to 13 policemen. Officials noted
that the men who were killed were wanted in connection with the bombing of the office of a Hindu
organization. Following this development, India's Prime Minister again reiterated his belief that
Pakistan must be made accountable for many of these episodes of violence, which were described
as acts of terrorism.
Developments in 2003
In early 2003, with an imbroglio brewing over the funding of Kashmiri separatist groups, senior
diplomatic corps from both India and Pakistan returned to their respective countries. The
contretemps occurred when the Indian police arrested two members of Hurriyat, a Kashmiri
separatist group, for financing militant terrorists. The police asserted that the finances had been
provided by the acting Pakistani High Commissioner, Jalil Abbas Jilani, and funneled from India's
India Review 2017
Page 38 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
capital city of Delhi to separatists in Indian-administered Kashmir. The revelation resulted in Jilani's
expulsion. For his part, Jilani claimed that the charges were simply measures aimed at intimidating
Pakistan's diplomatic corps in India.
Soon thereafter, India's acting High Commissioner, Sudhir Vyas, left the Pakistani capital of
Islamabad, having been expelled for "actions unbecoming of their status." The phrase is diplomatic
terminology for charges of spying. The details of the spying charges are yet unknown, however,
most observers assume that the expulsions of Vyas, as well as four other Indian diplomats, were
levied in response to the expulsion of Jilani from India.
Later, an accusation by India's Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee about Pakistani support for terrorism
exacerbated deteriorating relations. Specifically, Vajpayee declared that Pakistan had been involved
in the dubious logic of making a distinction between terrorism and freedom struggles where no
such difference existed. Vajpayee's statements were illustrative of an ongoing outcry by India's
government that Pakistan has been tacitly supporting terrorism, especially in relation to the
administration and control of Kashmir.
Although new diplomatic personnel for both countries were approved to replace the expelled
diplomatic staffers, the ever-brewing fight over Kashmir raised the specter of nuclear conflict
between these two nuclear neighbors on the Indian subcontinent.
Despite a spate of fresh violence in Indian-administered Kashmir by militant Islamists, there
appeared to be a thawing of relations between India and Pakistan by the spring of 2003.
First, the hardliner Indian Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, addressed the public in Kashmir's
summer capital of Srinagar and expressed the view that dialogue was necessary for building peace
in Kashmir. The government in Delhi also said it was interested in peace talks; however, it would
only consider talks with Islamabad if and when Pakistan relinquished support for militant Islamic
separatists fighting against Indian-rule of Kashmir. Pakistan's government expressed gratitude for
the gesture of openness but maintained the Pakistani position on Kashmir. Then, in a positive
breakthrough, however, at the end of April 2003, Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee spoke with his
Pakistani counterpart, Prime Minister Mir Zafarulla Khan Jamali, about measures aimed at
improving bilateral relations. The two considered economic cooperation, cultural visits and the
resumption of civil aviation service across the border, and Jamali invited Vajpayee to Islamabad.
Soon thereafter, India and Pakistan said they would re-establish diplomatic relations.
Then, Pakistan shockingly stated it would be prepared to denuclearize its arsenal if India would do
likewise. Because India is believed to possess nuclear weapons not only because of ongoing
conflict with Pakistan but also as a deterrent against China, it is unlikely that mutual abandonment
of nuclear arsenals will take place. Nevertheless, the suggestion was regarded as a diplomatic shift
of sorts.
India Review 2017
Page 39 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was due to visit Islamabad and Delhi;
discussions with the United States envoy and the governments of both countries were to focus on
possible bilateral dialogue and diffusing tensions. For its part, though, India's Prime Minister
Vajpayee insisted that there would be no role for a third party in resolving the Kashmir dispute.
Following on this theme, in June 2003, the Indian government rejected a call by the Pakistani
leadership for a "roadmap for peace" reminiscent of the one advocated by the United States
government in the Middle East. The Indian government in Delhi expressly said that it would never
accept outside mediation and that there was no place for a third party at the negotiating table.
On another front, in June 2003, India reached agreement with China over status of Tibet and
Sikkim, respectively. The agreement not only attempted to resolve the territorial issues associated
with the areas in question, but also established a landmark cross-border trade agreement.
Specifically, India formally recognized the Tibetan autonomous region as part of the People's
Republic of China, while China, agreed to border trade through the north-east Indian state of
Sikkim. The trade agreement effectively demonstrated Beijing's recognition of India's claim over
that area. In sum, the agreement functioned to boost bilateral relations between the two Asian
countries, which have been plagued by dismal relations over problematic border issues. Indeed,
there have been up to fifteen rounds of discussions in the last two decades.
India's recognition of Tibet did not affect the position of the exiled leadership of the region. The
spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, who lives in the Indian town of Dharamsala, said he still
wished to pursue talks with China regarding Tibet's independence. Also notable is the fact that the
Indian government has made a subtle distinction between the Tibet autonomous region and the
whole of Tibet. The Tibet autonomous region, west of the Yangtze river and south of the Kunlun
mountains is the only area recognized by modern-day China as contemporary Tibet. It is only a
third of the size of pre-1950 Tibet, which was invaded by China and has been absorbed into
nearby Chinese provinces.
In August 2003, over 50 people were killed and more than 130 were injured when two car bombs
exploded in India's main commercial city, Bombay (Mumbai). One car bomb exploded at the
Gateway of India, just in front of the luxury Taj Mahal hotel. The second car bomb exploded at
the Zaveri Bazaar, a gold and jewelry market close to the Momba Devi temple in the center of the
city. Although the Indian government did not identity of the group believed to have carried out the
attacks, there were suggestions that a militant Islamic student group may have been responsible.
Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) is a group aligned with the Pakistan-based militant
Islamic group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which responsible for the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament
in 2001 (discussed above). SIMI has also been mentioned in connection with a number of other
attacks in Bombay (Mumbai) within the last year. India's Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna
Advani said that the previous attacks had been carried out by SIMI, with support from Lashkar-eTaiba. The two car bombings occurred just as a report was being released regarding the
India Review 2017
Page 40 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
controversial site of a religious shrine at Ayodhya (also discussed above).
In late 2003, India accepted a unilateral ceasefire offer from Pakistan. The ceasefire along the
informal Indo-Pak border, or Line of Control (LoC), marked the first time in 14 years that the
exchange of fire ceased. Despite the adoption of the ceasefire, India warned that the truce was a
fragile one because of the continued threat of Islamic militants from Pakistan fighting against Indian
rule of Kashmir.
Still, in a discussion with former United States President Bill Clinton, Pakistani President Pervez
Musharraf said he hoped the progress in relations with India would result in direct dialogue
between the two countries. Earlier, the Pakistani leader told a United States Congressional
delegation, which included Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, that a "composite dialogue" was
essential to settling the issues facing the two countries. In this regard, the Pakistani government
invited Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to attend a regional summit in Islamabad.
The Start of 2004
Earlier in the year (prior to the election), India's Prime Minister Vajpayee said he wished to meet
with the leadership of Pakistan early in 2004. Direct bilateral talks took place last in July
2001. Such talks, indeed, took place at the start of 2004 and marked a progressive step toward
peace as India acknowledged Pakistan's efforts in trying to keep militants from crossing the LoC
and as Pakistan agreed not to begin any composite dialogue on the basis of difficult issues, such as
the status of Kashmir.
Elections of 2004: The Congress Party Returns to Power
In March 2004, media reports suggested that Rahul Gandhi, son of the assassinated former Indian
Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, would stand in India's parliamentary elections in April. Gandhi
represented the main opposition Congress Party, which was at the time led by his mother Sonia
Gandhi.
In May, India completed its general elections. Following India's general elections, results showed a
plurality of votes for Sonia Gandhi's Congress Party over Prime Minister Vajpayee's Bharatiya
Janata Party (BHP). Actual results were as follows: BJP and allies: 179seats; Congress Party and
allies: 212 seats; Others: 133 seats.
Because the Congress Party did not win an outright majority, a coalition government with allied
parties would have to be formed. Several communist parties, for example, had not concluded
whether or not they want to join the new government or simply support it. Regardless, they may
India Review 2017
Page 41 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
well have held the balance of power in India's government formation process.
Meanwhile, the allies of the Congress Party in parliament voted unanimously to support Sonia
Gandhi as the next prime minister. In this way, Italian-born Sonia Gandhi -- wife of the former
Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and daughter-in-law of the famed Prime Minister Indira Gandhi - was to be inaugurated within days. Such an outcome fueled discussions of a continued NehruGandhi legacy in Indian politics, which had been in effect since the time of independence.
In an unexpected development, however, following outrage by the outgoing Hindu nationalist BHP
government about the prospect of a foreign-born leader, Sonia Gandhi announced that she "humbly
declined" to be the next prime minister of India. It was unknown as to whether or not she would
actually stand by that decision or whom she would nominate for the post instead.
Insiders expressed the view that Manmohan Singh, the mastermind of India's economic
liberalization plan during the last Congress-led government in the 1990s, might be her first choice.
Indeed, Singh went on to be designated for the role of prime minister. In terms of policy, the
Congress Party was expected to continue steps toward rapprochement with Pakistan.
Political Developments of 2004 (post-election)
In May 2004, an attack on a bus in Kashmir involving a landmine left 33 people dead. The bus
had been transporting Indian soldiers and their relatives. The incident underscored the reality that
although a movement toward rapprochement with Pakistan had ensued, the issue of Kashmir has
continued to be a serious one. Moreover, militants were unlikely to embrace diplomatic overtures
undertaken by those in official political power and governance.
In mid-2004, the new government of India was faced with a conundrum when the opposition
demanded that two cabinet ministers be sacked. The opposition claimed that the two ministers
were unfit for office. The parliament was closed for two days as a result of the controversy.
In September 2004, the peace process between India and Pakistan appeared to be making some
much-lauded progress. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf met in
New York on the sidelines of the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. Reports say
the talks went well with both leaders voicing a desire to continue working together.
Political Developments in 2005
In early 2005, even as India and Pakistan were on the road to constructive dialogue, relations
between India and the United States suffered a setback. At issue was the decision by the United
States to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan. Faced with India's anger at this decision, the United
India Review 2017
Page 42 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
States explained it was selling the jets to India's rival to thank Pakistan for its help with the war on
terror. The United States offered to sell combat aircraft to India as well. Although India said it
would consider the offer, it was not entirely assuaged. Indeed, India pointed to an ideological
inconsistency on the part of the United States in regards to Pakistan's involvement in the
unregulated spread of nuclear technology. Notably, a Pakistani nuclear scientist, Dr. Khan, is
believed to have supplied nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
In May 2005, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said that a resolution to the Kashmir conflict
was within reach. The Pakistani leader made this assertion at a meeting of South Asian
parliamentarians in the capital city of Islamabad. President Musharraf also said that the Line of
Control, which has separated Indian-administered and Pakistani-administered portions of Kashmir,
had to be rendered irrelevant. He called for the demilitarization of the zone and said that Kashmiris
should be accorded a high level of autonomy -- in line with the wishes of the people. In a
concession to the government of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President Musharraf
also said, "We do understand India's sensitivity over their secular credentials and therefore it [the
solution] cannot be, maybe, on a religious basis. So therefore it needs to be on a regional basis, on
a peoples' basis." In the past, Pakistan has demanded that the future of Kashmir be determined
along religious lines.
In the first week of August 2005, three people were killed and nine others injured when a bomb
exploded at a crowded market in the north-eastern Indian state of Assam. The explosion occurred
in the town of Boko, just west of the state capital of Guwahati. Earlier, a massive explosion along a
pipeline at Chellakapar in Assam's northern Sibsagar district had caused a suspension of oil supplies
to refineries. Officials said they suspected separatist rebels, the United Liberation Front of Assam
(Ulfa), of carrying out the attacks. Efforts to commence talks between the Indian government and
Ulfa have not progressed fruitfully since the government in Delhi refused to release 10 rebel
leaders.
In October 2005, a series of three bomb attacks left close to 60 people dead and over 200 injured
in India's capital city of New Dehli. Two simultaneous explosions took place in the Sarojini Nagar
market in the south and at a central market near the neighborhood of Paharganj. A third explosion
took place moments later in the area of Govindpuri, possibly as a result of a bus bomb. The
majority of the casualties appeared to have been at the Sarojini Nagar market, although there were
a number of casualties also in Paharganj, located close to a major railway station frequented by
Western travelers. Early reports indicated few casualties at the Govindpuri bus explosion.
The actual attacks ensued around sunset just ahead of the Hindu festival of lights, known as
Diwali, and the Muslim celebration of Eid. Many people were in the streets around market areas
shopping in anticipation of the two religious observances.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh blamed the attacks on terrorists and warned that he would not
India Review 2017
Page 43 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
tolerate militant violence. During a televised address, he said: "These are dastardly acts of
terrorism. We are resolute in our commitment to fighting terrorism in all forms." Meanwhile,
India's Home Ministry held an emergency meeting of both security and intelligence officials.
For its part, Pakistan condemned the attacks. A statement from the Pakistani Foreign Ministry
read as follows: "Pakistan strongly condemns the terrorist attacks in Delhi, which have resulted in
the loss of a number of innocent lives. The attack in a crowded market place is a criminal act of
terrorism."
The Indian security authorities were reportedly investigating the attacks and speculated that one
group, possibly Islamic militants, might be responsible for all three. Indeed, a group by the name
of Inqilabi claimed responsibility but the police were trying to determine the veracity of the claim.
In late 2005, a mass grave was discovered by residents of the village of Pandarwada in the Indian
state of Gujarat. Human rights activists have suggested that the grave was filled with the remains
of thousands of Muslims who were killed during the Gujarat riots of 2002. Police officials,
however, said that it was unknown as to origins of the remains in the the grave. They did not
foreclose the possibility that an older graveyard had been uncovered. A judicial inquiry into the
riots of 2002 has been ongoing for some time.
A cabinet minister, Natwar Singh, announced in early December 2005 that he was resigning
following the publication of allegations that he and his son, Jagat Singh, benefited from the United
Nation's controversial "oil-for-food" program in Iraq. Singh (no relation to Prime Minister Singh)
had been named as a non-contractual beneficiary in an official report by the United Nations on the
program and had lost his Foreign Ministry portfolio as the situation gained publicity. Singh had
stayed on within the cabinet without a portfolio for a period; however, by early December 2005,
the opposition had launched a furious campaign to have him removed from office.
Singh's resignation came with a strong assertion that he had done nothing wrong and in a
somewhat forced fashion as he said that to voluntarily resign would be akin to admitting guilt.
Outside his official residence in the capital city of Delhi, he explained, "I am resigning from the
cabinet even though I have not violated any laws in letter or spirit. I don't wish to be an excuse for
the opposition to stall parliament." Singh's son, who was also alleged to have benefited from the
controversial program, asserted that both he and his father were ready to be investigated. He also
warned that they would not be scapegoats. The Indian government ordered a judicial investigation
into the matter.
Special Entry: South Asian Earthquake in 2005
An earthquake struck South Asia at 3:50 AM (GMT) on Oct. 8, 2005, causing massive
India Review 2017
Page 44 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
devastation. The epicenter of the earthquake was Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir,
although the tremor was felt across Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province, and as far as New
Delhi in India to the east and Kabul in Afghanistan to the west. The earthquake, which measured
7.6 in magnitude, was reported to have been one of the strongest to ever hit the region. The death
toll was anticipated to be over 20,000, however, there was speculation that it could reach beyond
that.
Pakistan bore the vast majority of the death and destruction from the earthquake. Across the Line
of Control in Indian-administered Kashmir, the death toll from the earthquake was estimated to be
around 600. The Chief Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir, Vijay Bakaya, surmised that the death
toll would likely increase. Among the dead in the disputed Kashmir region of the Himalayas were
several soldiers who had been killed in a landslide. Large-scale landslides presented a major
challenge for those trying to carry out rescue efforts as the main highway connecting Srinigar to the
rest of India was blocked as a consequence.
The town of Kupwara, located in close proximity to the Line of Control, was very badly hit.
Between 250 and 300 bodies were discovered at the site. Hundreds of people were also feared
trapped as a result of landslides. The area of Uri, located nearby, suffered a death toll over
100. Close to 1,000 people were reported to have been injured, while the vast majority of homes
were destroyed. Residents, now made homeless by the earthquake, were forced to roam outdoors
with nowhere to go.
The border districts of Baramullah and Poonch also suffered terrible damage. Within Poonch, a
200-year-old fort called Moti Mahal collapsed. In the Indian state of Punjab collapsed buildings,
including homes and shops, led rescuers to frantically search for survivors among the rubble. The
border district of Gurdaspur also experienced several casualties.
In Amritsar and Delhi, buildings were also damanged. The tremor was felt across India in the
provinces of Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya
Pradesh.
Indian authorities said that its priority was to ensure that urgent supplies of food, medicine,
blankets, tents and other aid and supplies were transported to remote areas affected by the
earthquake. As has been the case in Pakistan, helicopters have been needed to reach remote areas
for the purpose of rescue and relief efforts. Meanwhile, temporary medical camps were
established to treat those wounded. Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee reportedly toured the
areas hit by the earthquake accompanied by the leader of India's governing Congress party, Sonia
Gandhi. Mrs. Gandhi promised that both financial and medical assistance would be provided to
those affected, however, villages in hard-hit areas, such as Uri, complained bitterly that
government officials and journalists were passing by without stopping to take note of the situation
or to offer assistance.
India Review 2017
Page 45 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Political Developments in 2006
On his first visit to India in early March 2006, United States President George W. Bush and Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh forged a nuclear accord. In the deal, India would have access to
civil nuclear technology from the United States in return for opening its nuclear facilities to
inspection. The United States also agreed to drop its objections to a proposed pipeline, which
would supply gas from Iran to India via Pakistan. Prime Minister Singh noted that India's military
and civilian nuclear facilities would be separated, with 14 of the 22 nuclear facilities being classified
for civilian use, in order to facilitate the requisite inspections process. The Indian leader praised
the deal saying, "We made history today."
The deal came on the heels of a similar agreement forged between India and France. India has
been eager to craft productive agreements with other countries because of its growing population
and its concomitant need for increased energy supplies. While only 3 percent of India's electricity
has been derived from nuclear power in recent years, up to 25 percent of the country's electricity is
expected to come from nuclear power by 2050. According to the Uranium Information Center,
India has limited coal and uranium reserves, however, its substantial thorium reserves could
potentially fuel a nuclear power program on an extended basis.
Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), hailed the
accord saying that India was "an important partner in the non-proliferation regime." For India, the
agreement held great significance as it effectively ended several years of international isolation due
to its nuclear policy. Within India, however, there is residual opposition to the deal by adherents
to India's long-standing tradition of non-alignment - a notion they believe has been undermined by
closer ties with the United States.
Like his Indian counterpart, President Bush also characterized the agreement as "historic," but
warned that its actualization would depend upon ratification by the United States Congress. In that
legislative body, it was expected that there might be objections to the deal because India is not a
signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Supporters of the NPT have
objected to the fact that the deal sidesteps the existence of India's nuclear weapons program.
Meanwhile, other critics have noted that the deal prevents consistency on the matter of nuclear
proliferation, pointing to Washington's opposition to Iran's nuclear program.
In anticipation of such criticism, Bush said, "Congress has got to understand that it's in our
economic interests that India have a civilian nuclear power industry to help take the pressure off
the global demand for energy." Bush also highlighted growing bilateral trade between India and
the United States, as well as cooperation against terrorism. Additionally, he called for resolution
between India and Pakistan regarding the conflict over Kashmir.
India Review 2017
Page 46 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Bush's visit to India was opposed by various factions, including communist parties and Islamic
groups. Still, the opposition to his presence in India was limited when compared with the mass
demonstrations and violence in Pakistan, preceding Bush's arrival in that country. Ahead of his
arrival in Pakistan, a bomb blast close to the United States Consulate in Karachi killed a number of
persons, including a United States diplomat.
Amidst heavy security, Bush arrived in Pakistan for a 24-hour visit. He met with President Pervez
Musharraf and praised the Pakistani leader for his assistance with the global fight against terrorism
following the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. Bush also said that more work was
needed in the fight against the terrorist network, al-Qaida. While Musharraf called for further
cooperation between Pakistan and the United States, Bush's attention focused on an affirmation of
the existing strategic partnership between the his country and Pakistan in the fight against
terrorism. With no indication that Bush would offer Pakistan a similar type of accord as was
forged with India, there was an indignant outcry. Bush responded saying, "Pakistan and India are
different countries with different needs and different histories... As we proceed forward, our
strategy will take in those well-known differences."
On March 7, 2006, three bomb blasts hit the northen Indian city of Varanasi. The explosions -one at the Sankot Mochan Hindu temple and two at the main railway station -- left scores of
casualties. In addition to the three explosions, police said that another two bombs had been
defused -- one on the banks of the Ganges River and the other at a city market.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh condemned what appeared to be terrorist attacks and appealed
for calm. The security team from his cabinet was set to hold an emergency meeting regarding the
attacks. As well, various cities across India, including the capital city of Delhi, were placed on high
alert.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility. Still, Varanasi has come to be known as the
religious center for Hinduism attracting both Hindu worshippers as well as foreign tourists. The
city, located in the state of Uttar Pradesh, has certainly been the locus of religious violence over
the years. As such, there was some speculation that the attacks might have been carried out by
anti-Western and/or Islamic militant factions. This suggestion has been spurred by the timing of
the attacks, which occurred in the aftermath of the aforementioned visit to India by United States
President Bush, and shortly after sectarian strife between Hindus and Muslims in the city of
Lucknow.
A terrorist attack by militant Islamists left at least 35 Hindus dead in two separate attacks in Indiancontrolled Kashmir. In one case in the mountainous district of Doda, the attackers dressed in
police garb entered homes and forced people to convene in one house belonging to a village
chieftain. Once the people were congregated there, they were shot at close range. The Chief
India Review 2017
Page 47 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir, Vijay Bakaya, described the killings as a "massacre."
The terrorist attacks occurred ahead of a scheduled meeting between moderate separatist Kashmiri
leaders and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. It was not known whether or not the timing
of the attacks were linked with this meeting.
No group immediately claimed responsibility for the attacks, which broke a period of relative quiet
in Kashmir. The most well-known militant Islamic groups, operating in Kashmir from across the
border in Pakistan, condemned these particular killings. One spokesman for the militant group,
Hizbul Mujahideen, said that killing civilians would not further the "liberation movement." Instead,
he placed the blame on Indian intelligence agents. For its part, India placed the blame on
Pakistan. India's Foreign Minister Anand Sharma said, "It is cross border terrorism. It's not the first
time we are saying it."
The incident may well impinge on Indo-Pak relations, which in recent times, have been on a more
positive track due to bilateral overtures. Control of Kashmir, however, has always been at the heart
of the conflict between the two nuclear nations. At times, the conflict has resulted in war which has
left thousands of people dead since 1989.
On July 11, 2006, a series of seven bombs exploded on trains in India's financial capital, Mumbai
(also known as Bombay). Reports suggested approximately 200 people were believed to have
been killed while around 500 were reportedly injured.
The bombs exploded on moving trains and at two stations during the evening rush hour along the
densely-traversed Western Railway. The precise locations hit included areas aound Borivili, Khar,
Jogeshwari, Matunga and Mira Road.
Following the detonation of the bombs and the ensuing explosions, observers on the scene
remarked on the the powerful sound of the explosion. Observers also described the sight of people
frantically jumping from the trains while bodies lay strewn across the train tracks among luggage
and random personal items. The televsion media depicted the images of injured and bloodied
commuters being carried through the wreckage to safety.
The sheer volume of casualties taxed the city's emergency services. With insufficient ambulances
available, some of those injured had to reach hospitals on their own. Meanwhile, Mumbai's entire
rail system -- one of the world's busiest -- was closed.
Indian security officials placed both Mumbai and the governmental capital of Dehli on high alert.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, characterized the apparent terrorism as a "shocking and
cowardly attempt to spread a feeling of hatred." He also called on Indians to stay calm in the face
of chaos. Pakistan was quick to condemn the attacks as "despicable" acts of terrorism. Other
India Review 2017
Page 48 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
world leaders also issued their condemnation of the attacks and condolences to India.
Unfortunately, the train attacks were not the only incidences of terrorism that India had to deal
with on July 11, 2006. Only hours before the seven bombs exploded in Mumbai, grenade attacks
by Islamic militants in Kashmir's summer capital of Srinagar also left several people dead.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility in either of the two sets of attacks. While
Kashmir's contested status suggested that extremist Islamists from Pakistan may have been
responsible for the attack in Srinagar, two Islamic militant groups geared toward ending Indian
administration of Kashmir denied responsibility for the train attacks in Mumbai. Meanwhile, it was
quite clear that Mumbai had been selected by terrorists as the location for the train attacks because
of its strategic importance as India's financial center. Nevertheless, a day after the attack, security
officials said there were no clear indications about who might have been responsible for the train
bombings. Instead, they deliberately stated that "terrorists," of the broad and unspecified variety,
were to blame.
For his part, during a televised address a day after the attacks in Mumbai Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh thanked professionals and civilians who responded to the chaos for their
"courage and humanism." The Indian leader also spoke of India's sense of national pride and
dignity, vowing that "no-one can make India kneel."
Editor's Note: There have been a number of terrorist attacks in Mumbai in the last decade. In
1993, a series of bomb blasts killed 250 people. In 2002, an attack on a bus claimed two lives and
a blast at a McDonald's fast food store resulted in 23 casualties. A year later, an attack at a
marketplace resulted in injuries to 30 people. In 2003, an attack on a commuter train left 11 dead,
a bus blast resulted in three deaths, and a double car bombing claimed 44 lives. Other parts of
India have also suffered from sectarian violence throughout the country's post-independence
history, and Kashmir has been the source of enduring hostility between India and Pakistan. The
capital city of Dehli was the site of a well-known terrorist attack by Islamic militants in late 2001
when they stormed the country's parliament building. Several people died, including the militants
responsible for the attack. They were believed to be from one of two Pakistan-based groups -Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. That incident, which occurred only three months after
the well-known September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, contributed to the
devolution of relations between India and Pakistan.
In August 2006, Pakistan accused Deepak Kaul, an Indian official of the Indian High Commission
in Islamabad, of handling sensitive documents. Pakistan said that Kaul had been caught "redhanded" and was detained by Pakistani agents and then ordered to leave the country. For his part,
Kaul denied any involvement in inappropriate activities. India also denied allegations of
wrongdoing and responded by expelling a Pakistani diplomat, Sayed Mohammed Rafq Ahmed.
India Review 2017
Page 49 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Two months later in October 2006, India detained a Pakistani driver, employed by the High
Commission of Pakistan in Delhi, over the illegal transfer of classified documents. Indian security
officials said that the Pakistani national, Mohammed Farooq, had been caught receiving the
classified military documents. An Indian soldier was also arrested for passing the documents on to
the Pakistani driver. Pakistan decried the India's handling of the situation, accusing its neighbor of
violating international conventions. To this end, Pakistan released a statement that read as
follows: "Pakistan has lodged a strong protest with the Indian government over the illegal detention
and manhandling of Farooq, a driver of the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi by the Indian
security personnel... The harassment of the Pakistani driver is a violation of international
conventions as well as diplomatic norms."
The diplomatic imbroglio appeared to be a manifestation of rising tensions between the two nuclear
powers in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks earlier in the summer of 2006. Moreover,
these two incidences threatened to derail diplomatic progress between the two nuclear neighbors.
With India and Pakistan set to resume peace talks in November 2006, it was unknown how these
latest developments would affect the peace process.
Nevertheless, Indo-Pak relations remained on the agenda when Indian authorities said that they
believed Pakistan's intelligence agency was responsible for the aforementioned July 2006 terrorist
attacks in Mumbai. The Indian authorities also said that the terror attacks had actually been
carried out by the Pakistan-based Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba (mentioned above). To
this end, Indian Police Commissioner A.N. Roy said that 11 Pakistanis were involved in carrying
out the attacks, which involved the smuggling of explosives across the border. He also noted
that operatives from the Students' Islamic Movement of India had been implicated in the attacks as
well. Pakistan rejected the allegations, saying that India's claims were baseless and intended to
malign Pakistan.
On November 16, 2006, Pakistan successfully test-fired its Hatf V (also known as Ghauri) missile,
with a range of 1,300 kilometers. The Hatf V was said to be nuclear-capable. Pakistan said that
the missile test was for the purpose of "checking technical parameters." Three days after
Pakistan's missile test, India tested the medium-range Prithvi missile. The surface-to-surface
Privthvi missile was said to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads, with a range of 250
kilometers, and could travel 150 kilometers in 300 seconds. The missile test was part of a air
defense exercise and was to be followed by further tests. Ironically, the tests came only days after
the two nuclear rivals met for peace talks in the Indian capital city of New Delhi.
Developments in 2007
On February 19, 2007, a train bound from the Indian capital of Dehli to the Pakistan city of
Lahore was hit by a series of explosions as it passed near the town of Panipat and approached the
India Review 2017
Page 50 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
village of Deewana. Two of the train coaches were said to have been engulfed by fire. More than
65 people were reported to have been killed and several more injured as a result of the blasts and
resulting flames. Officials for the railway said that they had located five explosive devices capable
of producing massive fires. Such a discovery, if confirmed, would indicate that the explosions
were a deliberate attack. A spokesperson for India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asserted
that the explosions were an "act of terror."
Mid-July 2007 saw the first female president elected in India. Although a late entrant to the
presidential election after some left-leaning parties in the ruling coalition rejected the original
presidential candidate put forth by the Congress Party, Pratibha Patil won a decisive election
victory. After securing approximately two-thirds of the votes cast in India's parliament and state
assemblies, Patil was thus set to become the head of state of the world's largest democracy.
Known as being loyal to Congress Party leader, Sonia Gandhi, Patil's political background included
a stint as governor of the northern Indian state of Rajasthan. She became a source of controversy
after encouraging women to discard their wearing of the veil, which she said was introduced to
protect women from Muslim Mughal invaders. She subsequently retracted this view. Following
confirmation of her win, Patil said: "I am grateful to the people of India and the men and women
of India and this is a victory for the principles which our Indian people uphold." Meanwhile,
Gandhi applauded Patil's victory saying, "In the 60th year of our independence, for the first time
we have a woman president."
While India has some degree of a history of well-known women in politics -- notably, Prime
Minister Indira Gandji and her daughter in law, Sonia Gandhi -- the election of Patil was seen by
some as a symbol of progress in a country where women have often suffered from social
oppression. However, others regarded her new position was being empty symbolism not at all
illustrative of any movement in the status of women in India, where cultural practices, such as
bridal dowries, have remained discriminatory.
On August 25, 2007, the specter of terrorism was raised after twin bomb attacks rocked the
southern city of Hyderabad in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The attacks occurred within minutes
of one another and appeared to target a popular restaurant and an auditorium -- both of which
were outdoor venues. More than 40 people were killed and at least 50 more were injured as a
result.
The Chief Minister for Andhra Pradesh, Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy, characterized the attacks as acts
of terrorism. Indeed, in interviews with the media, Reddy noted that preliminary information
indicated the involvement of terrorist organizations in the two Islamic countries bordering India,
Pakistan and Bangladesh. Meanwhile, forensic investigators were searching for any clues that
might be used in conclusively identifying those responsible. In terms of motive, Indian President
Pratibha Patil suggested that the attacks may have been rooted in religious animosity, and noted
India Review 2017
Page 51 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
that they were aimed at disturbing harmony the religiously mixed city, populated by both Hindus
and Muslims. The attacks came three months after a bombing at a mosque dating back to the 17th
century; that attack left several people dead also.
Months later, India's most popular Sufi Muslim shrine was hit by an explosion. The explosion
ensued on October 11, 2007 as thousands gathered for prayers at the pilgrimge site, located in the
city of Ajmer in the state of Rajastan. There were reports of some deaths and over a dozen
injuries although there was no immediate explanation as to the cause of the explosion. There were
reports that a bomb may have detonated from inside a bag or other such container, however, there
was no confirmation at the time of writing. The country was placed on alert as a result of what
appeared to have been an attack and not an accidental explosion.
Violence hit again days later. An explosion at a cinema on October 14, 2007, left at least six people
dead and more than 30 others wounded. The explosion occurred at a packed movie theatre in the
town of Ludhiana in the northern state of Punjab. Mass chaos ensued following the explosion as
people attempted to flee what they feared was a bomb. To that end, Indian authorities said that a
bomb may have been placed under the seats in the front of the theatre.
On October 27, 2007, an attack by Maoist rebels in the eastern part of India left close to 20 people
dead. During a festival in the state of Jharkhand, a group of Maoist rebels numbering around 25 in
total opened fire on the crowd. The police said that the border with the neighboring state of Bihar
was closed in order to prevent the rebels from escaping. Approximately 6,000 people have died
over the course of many years that Maoist rebels have been fighting for the establishment of a
communist state. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh characterized the Maoists as being a serious
national security threat in India.
Also in October 2007, approximately 25,000 Indians participated in a protest march to draw
attention to the plight of the landless and rural population who have not benefited from India's
recent economic boom. The protestors began the march on October 2, 2007 -- a national holiday
that commemorates the birthday of the father of the modern Indian nation state, Mahatma
Gandhi. The march was set to move into the capital city of New Delhi on October 29, 2007
The protestors were predominantly tenant farmers of low caste and landless people of indigenous
ethnicity. Chanting the words "give is water, give us land," they criticized government-backed
development projects that forced them off their lands, and demanded land redistribution. The
protestors also called for a federal authority to direct both land reform and resolve disputes
involving land ownership. The protestors additionally condemned the fact that they had not
benefited from India's economic growth and development in recent years. To that end, an
organizer of the protest march, Puthan Vithal Rajgopal said, "Forty percent of Indians are now
landless and 23 percent of them are in abject poverty."
India Review 2017
Page 52 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
While these sorts of protests may have fallen on deaf ears in years gone by, the current
government appeared to be responsive to these renewed calls. Notably, plans to construct both a
petrochemical facility and a shipyard were shelved as a result of earlier protests. As well,
protestors met with the president of the ruling Congress Party, Sonia Gandhi to air their grievances,
and were attempting to arrange for talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Developments in 2008:
A period of relative calm in the contested region of Kashmir, which borders Pakistan but has been
under Indian control, came to an end in the first part of May 2008. Islamic militants to the south
of Jammu were reported to have killed two civilians before being faced with security forces.
Subsequent clashed resulted in the death of one soldier.
Note: The area of Kashmir has seen much violence over the years due to its contested status in
which it is officially under Indian control but claimed by Pakistan. Islamic militants from across
the border in Pakistan have repeatedly tried to wrest control from India through violent means and
the use of terror tactics. The issue has been the main source of strife between the two nuclear
powers, even leading to more than on war in the past.
A series of well-coordinated bombs were detonated across the historic city of Jaipur in India on
May 13, 2008. The death toll was reported as 60 people, however, this number was subject to
change. The bombs blasts occurred within seven minutes of one another and went off in close
proximity to monuments. The city, located in Rajasthan, has been a popular tourist destination for
years and has had no history of violence or religious strife. Officials said that the attacks appeared
to be acts of terrorism although there was no immediate claim of responsibility. The motivation
behind the bombings was thusly something of a mystery. While Jaipur is inhabited mostly by
Hindus, it has also home to Muslim minority.
In late June 2008, a bomb blast at a market in the north-eastern Indian state of Assam left at least
six people dead and about 80 others injured. Authorities placed the blame for the bombing on
separatist rebels, likely allied with or belonging to the United Liberation Front of Assam (Ulfa).
Experts suggested that the attack may have been carried out by a faction of Ulfa opposed to the
group's decision to carry out a truce. The head of police intelligence in Assam, Khagen Sharmah,
said in an interview with British media that the bombing was a "direct reaction" to the ceasefire
declaration by Ulfa commanders. He said, "There is no doubt that such a powerful explosion can
be done by only one group in Assam and that is the Ulfa." For its part, however, Ulfa neither
denied nor accepted responsibility for the attack.
Also in late June 2008, the decision by the government of Indian-administered Kashmir to transfer
land a Hindu shrine organization, the Amarnath Shrine Board, provoked angry and violent protests
India Review 2017
Page 53 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
by the region's Muslim majority. The matter also spurred further acrimony stemming from the
Muslim/Hindu divisions in Kashmir -- a flashpoint for conflict between mainly Hindu India and
mainly Muslim Pakistan. Perhaps realizing that the matter would cause only greater hostility, State
Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said the plans for the forested land would be formally revoked.
Late July 2008, saw seven bombs simultaneously explode in the Indian city and information
technology hub of Bangalore. At least two people were reported to have been killed and many
more were injured, as a result of the attacks. Officials said the bombs were all detonated by timers
and were of "low intensity," thus fuelling speculation that they were intended to cause panic rather
than cause maximum carnage. There was no immediate claim of responsibility, however, the
government vowed to bring those responsible to justice. Home Minister Shivraj Patil said, "Such
incidents will not deter the government from pursuing its policy of dealing with terrorists in a
resolute manner."
On July 26, 2008 -- one day after the southern Indian city of Bangalore was hit by seven bombs -the western city of Ahmedabad was plagued by 17 explosions within one hour. The bombs went
off in residential areas, market places, public transportation venues, and even hospitals. At least 45
people were reported to have been killed and more than 100 injured as a result of the apparent
terrorist attacks.
Unlike the Bangalore bombings that were described as "low intensity," the Ahmedabad bombs
employed the use of ball bearings and shrapnel, clearly intended to cause greater harm. As such,
the two incidences were viewed separately by officials. Indeed, a hitherto unknown Islamic
extremist group, Indian Mujahideen, claimed responsibility for the Ahmedabad bombings, and
made clear that sectarian strife was at the core of the violence. The city of Ahmedabad has been
no stranger to sectarian strife. As an ethnically and religiously diverse city, it was the site of riots
between Hindus and Muslims in 2002 that left hundreds dead.
In response to the attacks, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called on Indian citizens to remain
calm. President Pratibha Patil said that the people of India should "remain steadfast in this testing
time and maintain peace and harmony."
Meanwhile, in the realm of government, the ruling coalition was faced with a challenge in July
2008. With the Communists withdrawing support for the Congress Party-led coalition government
in India, a confidence vote loomed ahead. The Communists withdrew their support in the first part
of July 2008 to protest the government's decision to move forward with a civilian nuclear
agreement with the United States. The deal provides for India's access to United States civilian
nuclear technology and fuel, along with civilian nuclear inspection provisions.
Debate on the nuclear issue, which would set the stage for the confidence vote, was expected to
begin on July 20, 2008. Debate would last for two days, with the vote set to take place in
India Review 2017
Page 54 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
parliament on July 22, 2008.
Congress Party leader, Sonia Gandhi, expressed confidence that her coalition would prevail saying,
"I have no doubt that we shall prove our majority and work to fulfill our remaining agenda." To
that end, the Congress Party was hoping to gain the support of the Samajwadi Party. However, if
the nuclear issue caused consternation within the Samajwadi Party, the coalition government risked
losing the confidence vote and effectively falling from political viability. Such an outcome would
thusly pave the way for early elections. Such an end, however, did not come to pass since the
Indian government won the confidence vote, according to media reports from New Delhi.
In late September, 2008, a bomb blast at a market in the India's capital city of New Delhi left at
least one person dead and more than 15 others wounded. Witnesses said that two men
approached the market on a motorcycle and deposited a package, which was revealed to have
contained an explosive device. This attack came two weeks after five bombs wrought havoc in
shopping areas across New Delhi, killing at least 20 people. Indian authorities placed the blame for
the attacks on a group called Indian Mujahideen (IM) and police soon arrested the its founder in
the city of Bombay (Mumbai).
Special Report: Mumbai Terror Attacks
More than 175 dead after a series of horrific terror attacks in Mumbai; Indian authorities say
militant Pakistani group is responsible
On November 26, 2008, suspected Islamic militants waged a series of simultaneous terror attacks
in the heart of India's commercial capital of Mumbai. At least 175 people died as a result and
hundreds more were wounded in the attacks that lasted days.
According to Indian authorities, at least ten terrorists -- all young men between the ages of 20 and
23 years -- took control of a fishing trawler in the Arabian Sea. Although the origin of the young
men was unknown, Indian authorities surmised that they may have come from the Pakistani port
of Karachi since the GPS tracker on the vessel showed a return mapping for that city.
The terrorists traveled for some time on the fishing trawler before abandoning that vessel and then
transferring to inflatable dinghies en route for Mumbai. They set alight on land at the Gateway of
India in Mumbai, divided themselves into four groups, and then took taxis to the city center. They
left either bombs or grenades in the taxis, which exploded soon after they exited the cars at their
targeted destinations. Those destinations were the sites of the various terror attacks.
The first of the series of attacks began at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (also known as the
Victoria railway station), when the terrorist on the platforms fired indiscriminately on people,
killing most of the victims at this particular site. After exiting the train station, the terrorists shot
India Review 2017
Page 55 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
three policemen and fired at journalists standing in close proximity to a movie theatre. The
terrorists then used a police vehicle, and later another stolen car, to drive through Mumbai shooting
at people along the way, as well as those at the Cama hospital for women and children.
Some of the terrorists had launched an attack on the Leopold Cafe, popular with tourists and
expatriates. The attack on the Leopold Cafe resulted in destruction and bloodshed. As well, one
group of terrorist charged a Jewish rest house in Nariman, taking an orthodox Jewish rabbi and his
wife hostage. Their maid had managed to escape the building with the couple's young child.
Meanwhile, yet other cadres of terrorists had charged through two luxury hotels -- the famed Taj
Mahal and the Oberoi Trident -- where surviving victims said they had rounded up guests and
taken them hostage on the roofs. Surviving victims also said that the terrorists were keen to
identify Americans and British guests. As with the railway station, later reports noted that there
was a heavy death toll at these hotels. Additionally, the property damage was devastating, largely
due to fires and the explosion of grenades.
While the attacks at the railway station, movie theatre, hospitals and cafe came to merciful
conclusions, albeit with heavy casualties, the situations at the two luxury hotels and at the Jewish
rest house remained unresolved for several days. Indian police and military were ensconced in
multi-site sieges with the terrorists, often involving the exchange of gunfire, and with victims
trapped and terrified inside the three structures, wondering if they would survive.
The sieges finally ended more than 60 hours later. With the attacks now over, there was a
devastating death toll of at least 175 people at the time of writing, and hundreds more injured and
battling for their lives. Mumbai's anti-terrorism chief, as well as the Jewish rabbi and his wife,
were among those losing their lives in the attacks. Most of the terrorists were also among the
dead. The destruction across Mumbai was manifold. In many senses, India had experienced its
own equivalent of the United States "9/11" terror attacks. The attacks also revealed the limitations
of India's system of security, leading to criticisms about the police training and tactics, and
ultimately, the resignation of one of India's leading law enforcement officials.
With the now attacks over, attention turned to the question of who was responsible. Soon after the
terror attacks were launched, a hitherto unknown group calling itself Deccan Mujahideen had
claimed responsibility. However, Indian authorities, regional analysts and terrorism experts all
expressed skepticism that an unknown entity, particularly one based in India, could have had the
means to pull off such a massive assault on the country's commercial center. While the terror
attacks were of the “low technology” variety, they were nonetheless expertly orchestrated and
executed.
The simultaneity of multi-sited attacks was a hallmark of a global jihadist operation, such as alQaida. Likewise, the reports that the terrorists were seeking Westerner victims pointed to the likes
of al-Qaida or an al-Qaida inspired group with an international (vis a vis regional) agenda. As well,
India Review 2017
Page 56 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Ayman al-Zawari -- Osama Bin Laden's deputy leader -- had released a statement only weeks
earlier. In the past, sudden media appearances by Bin Laden and/or those in his inner circle have
sometimes functioned as ominous harbingers of subsequent attacks orchestrated by al-Qaida.
That said, there were other suggestions that the attacks could well have been launched by a
Pakistani-based terror group, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the December
2001 storming of the Indian parliament. Another group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, was also mentioned
due to its own history of militant Islamist attacks on India. Both militant Islamic groups have
focused on the contested territory of Kashmir -- an ongoing source of conflict and even warfare
between the two nuclear-capable countries of Pakistan and India over the years. Some regional
analysts argued that recent conciliatory gestures by the Pakistani government toward the Congress
Party's government in India may have served as motivation for such militant Islamic terrorists who
favor a violent hard-line approach, rather than diplomacy, in securing jurisdiction over Kashmir. It
should be noted that despite their regional agenda of Kashmir, both Lashkar-e-Taiba as well as
Jaish-e-Mohammed have been increasingly regarded as aligned to some degree with al-Qaida, and
thus may have adopted some of that group's grander global jihadist aspirations.
Amidst such speculation, investigators indicated that while the terrorists may have had local
support, evidence indicated that they were not from India. The Indian government echoed this
view, noting that those responsible for the terror attacks must have come from outside India's
borders, but stopping short of a full-blown accusation of Pakistan’s complicity despite mounting
evidence of a Pakistani connection of some kind or another. For its part, the Pakistani
government condemned the attacks but also unequivocally denied any culpability in the attacks.
The Pakistani government was also reticent about admitting that the terrorists may have been of
Pakistani origins.
Nevertheless, Indian authorities moved one step closer to determining the actual identity of the
perpetrators of this terrorist assault on Mumbai after questioning one of the surviving terrorists who
had been captured by the police. Indian authorities said that 21-year old Mohammed Ajmal
Mohammed Amir Kasar was from Pakistan's Punjab province. The authorities said that Kasar
admitted that he belonged to the aforementioned Lashkar-e-Taiba and had been trained at one of
that terrorist group's camps in Pakistan. According to Kasar, the objective of the terrorism plot
was to "create an international incident." To this end, Kasar noted that "anything big in Mumbai
would be noticed all over the world." Kasar also reportedly said that his co-conspirators intended
to take hostages "for safe passage."
The revelation that the terrorists belonged to Lashkar-e-Taiba, as well as the contention by
counter-terrorism experts that the group was actually an extension of the Pakistani intelligence
service, were likely to collectively contribute to the ratcheting up of tensions on the Indian subcontinent.
As before, the Pakistani government was quick to distance itself from any evidence indicating
India Review 2017
Page 57 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Pakistani involvement. Farhatullah Babar, a spokesman for Pakistani President Asif Zardari, said:
"We have demanded evidence of the complicity of any Pakistani group. No evidence has yet been
provided."
Some time later, however, Pakistan acknowledged that the only gunman who was captured alive
was, indeed, one of its citizens. Pakistan also admitted that the attackers arrived in India from
Karachi in Pakistan, on a boat that was hired in the Balochistan province of Pakistan. In this way,
Pakistan was finally acknowledging that some degree of conspiracy had originated in Pakistan.
Accordingly, Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik promised that suspects from the Lashkar-eTaiba militant group would face prosecution.
Special Entry: India's Parliamentary Elections of 2009
India's parliamentary elections were held in the spring of 2009 on a phased basis from April 16 to
May 13, 2009. There were more than 230 parties contesting the elections and seeking
representation in the country's lower house of parliament, known as the Lok Sabha. Prior to the
election, it was believed that the result would not bring about a clear majority for any single party,
but rather a coalition government, led either by the center-left Congress Party of Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh, or, the center-right and nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of L.K.
Advani.
The two parties crafted wider alliances in respective bids to capture the lion's share of the vote. To
that end, the left-leaning Congress Party was at the helm of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA),
while the right-wing BJP was the main participant in the opposition National Democratic Alliance
(NDA). But both alliances would be challenged by a coalition of regional and caste-based groups,
known as "Third Front."
Going into the election, the main issues included the economy and security. For its part, the
Congress Party showcased the rapid economic growth and investment in social policies, which
occurred under its watch. But the more recent challenges to the economy, marked by slowing
growth, inflation and loss of jobs, were expected to bode negatively for the party’s electoral
aspirations. On the other hand, recent state elections showed little encouragement for the BJP,
which focused on internal security and the terrorism threat posed by militant Islam in the aftermath
of the tragic Mumbai (Bombay) attacks of November 2008.
On the first day of the Indian election, millions of citizens cast their ballots. But the situation was
somewhat marred by attacks by Maoist rebels, which left several people dead in the central and
eastern states of the country. In Orissa, the rebels destroyed electronic voting machines at some
polling stations. The second phase of voting began in the Indian elections with millions of voters
casting ballots and without the violence of the first phase. By early May 2009, as voters cast
India Review 2017
Page 58 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
ballots in India's capital city of Delhi and seven states, it was clear that voter awareness campaigns
had been successful as overall turnout had increased from the previous election.
Voting ended on May 13, 2009, with counting expected to take place on May 16, 2009. When the
phased process of casting ballots finally ended, neither the ruling Congress-led coalition nor the
opposition BJP was expected to win an outright victory, setting the stage for smaller regional parties
to play kingmaker.
But the conventional wisdom was soon discarded as election results showed a resounding victory
for India’s ruling Congress Party.
With most votes counted, the Election Commission of India announced that the Congress Party
had won 204 seats, and with its alliance members, it had won 254 seats in the 543-seat
Parliament. While 254 was still short of the 272 seats needed for an absolute majority, cobbling
together a coalition government with smaller parties would be a feasible proposition. In contrast,
the BJP alliance was carrying only 153 seats and was in no position to easily form a coalition
government of its own.
The strong performance of the party dominated by the Nehru-Gadhi dynasty put to rest anxieties
about an unstable and unmanageable coalition at the helm of the Indian political landscape.
For his part, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared victory and made clear that the Indian
electorate had bestowed a "massive mandate" on the Congress Party’s coalition. The prime
minister said that the victory was a nod to the party’s platform of balancing free market reforms
with poverty alleviation programs, as well as its secular tradition -- a clear contrast with the Hindu
nationalist BJP.
Manmohan Singh, a technocrat, was expected to return to top spot in government as prime
minister -- a suitable validation from the voters for his leadership. There was also attention on
Rahul Gandhi -- the son of party leader, Sonia Gandhi -- who had functioned as the main election
strategist. The election victory was one step along a political path that could one day culminate in
him becoming prime minister.
On the other side of the equation, the BJP conceded defeat and said that it would enter a period of
introspection. Arun Jaitley, a senior BJP leader, said, “The BJP accepts the mandate of the people
of India with all humility." Jaitley went on to say, "We will analyze these results in detail."
Meanwhile, the high hopes of the insurgent Third Front were entirely derailed.
At the international level, United States President Barack Obama congratulated India on its
"historic national elections.” A statement from the White House read: "By successfully completing
the largest exercise of popular voting in the world, the elections have strengthened India's vibrant
democracy and upheld the values of freedom and pluralism that make India an example for us all.”
India Review 2017
Page 59 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
On May 20, 2009, Indian President Pratibha Patil invited caretaker Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh to form the next government with Singh at the helm as prime minister. The United
Progressive Alliance (UPA), led by Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi and Singh, presented
President Patil with letters of support of 274 members of parliament from parties -- two more than
the 272 needed to maintain a majority. The president also received letters of support for the UPA
from three parties-- the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), the Samajwadi Party (SP), and Rashtriya
Janata Dal (RJD). These additional 48 members of parliament gave the UPA control of 322
parliamentary seats -- more than enough to form a stable government with a clear majority in
parliament. Accordingly, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his cabinet ministers were
sworn into office on May 22, 2009. An expanded cabinet was advanced some days later.
Developments in 2009:
In June 2009, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh demanded that Pakistani President Asif Ali
Zardari deal with the Islamic extremist terrorists seeking to attack India. Prime Minister Singh said
that peace talks were off the proverbial table unless President Zardari acted against Pakistan's
largest terrorist organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the horrific Mumbai
(Bombay) terror attacks in November 2008. Under pressure from the United States, Pakistan was
already carrying out an offensive against al-Qaida and the Taliban. But despite the public attention
on those two groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba was in fact the most significant and active extremist
organization operating and orchestrating attacks from within Pakistani terrain.
In late June 2009, faced with violent attacks by Maoist rebels, the Indian government officially
banned the Maoist Communist Party of India on the basis that it was a terrorist group. Earlier in
the year, the district of Gadchiroli was the site of another battle between Maoists and security
forces, and left 15 policemen dead. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh characterized the
Maoist rebels as posing the greatest internal security threat to the country. The move provided
enhanced powers of arrest, including the detainment of party members whether or not they are
involved in terrorist activity.
As well, the Indian government deployed troops to certain key areas of the country where the
Maoist rebels have been active, with the objective of retaining control. Notably, one area of West
Bengal was said to be under total Maoist control, and the Indian government warned that five
states around the eastern and central part of the country could be subject to Maoist attacks,
particularly in crowded areas traversed by civilians. In fact, Maoist landmine blasts had already left
a hefty death toll on Indian security forces. Meanwhile, in response to the new offensive by the
Indian military, the Maoists were actively spurring dissent and had orchestrated a two-day strike.
By July 2009, a series of attacks in India's central state of Chhattisgarh left at least 30 policemen
dead, including the superintendent of the police. Indian authorities blamed the attacks on Maoist
India Review 2017
Page 60 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
rebels. The attacks included ambushes and landmine explosions and constituted some of the worst
violence by the Maoist rebels in recent times.
For about two decades, Maoist rebels have been fighting for communist rule in regions across
India. To date, more than 6,000 people have died in the insurgency. In Chattisgarh, about 150 had
been killed in 2009 alone. In late June 2009, the Indian government officially banned the Maoist
Communist Party of India on the basis that it was a terrorist group. Indeed, Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh characterized the Maoist rebels as posing the greatest internal security threat to
the country. The move provided enhanced powers of arrest, including the detainment of party
members whether or not they are involved in terrorist activity. As well, the Indian government
deployed troops to certain key areas of the country where the Maoist rebels have been active, with
the objective of retaining control.
In October 2009, a battle between Indian security forces and Maoist insurgents in the Indian state
of Maharashtra left at least 17 policemen dead, including a top commander. Indian authorities said
the fighting was sparked when a group of 150 Maoist insurgents attacked a police station in a
forested area of the Gadchiroli district, and a battle went on for a few hours. The fighting ended
when the rebels have fled to the Chhattisgarh border. That very district of Gadchiroli was the site
of another battle in February 2009 when 15 policemen died.
A spate of attacks by these insurgents spurred the government of India to warn that the Maoists
pose the biggest security threat to the country. With a presence in 200 regions and operations
across many states, the Maoist insurgents were certainly positioned to carry out their fight, which
they say has been on behalf of the poor and landless. Such a cause, however, cannot obfuscate
the violence and bloodshed. Indeed, since the insurgency was launched in the 1960s, thousands of
people have died. Moreover, the way in which deaths have ensued in recent times contain a level
of unprecedented brutality. In Bihar, a rebel attack on a village left 16 villagers dead, and the
beheaded body of a policeman was found in Jharkhand. Indian Home Minister Chidambaram
warned that a major offensive operation was in the offing if the rebels refuse to abandon their
violent tactics.
In November 2009, there were indications of an offensive in India against the Maoist rebels. The
offensive was launched in response to the growing climate of violence in India, which the
government has blamed on the Maoists, arguing that they presented the most significant threat to
national security. Certainly, violence by Maoists has seen hundreds die every year in India, with
up to 100,000 civilians displaced. The violence had grown so widespread that Maoist insurgent
actions was noted in over 600 districts across the country. Meanwhile, with a military offensive in
the offing, the European Commission warned that humanitarian operations in the impoverished
area would be badly compromised.
Meanwhile, earlier in September 2009, Israel warned India that Islamic extremists were plotting
India Review 2017
Page 61 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
attacks similar to those carried out in Mumbai the year before. Israel's counter-terrorism unit said
that the terrorist group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks were planning further attacks that
would target Western and/or Israeli tourists. They characterized their findings as "as concrete, very
serious threat." To that end, Israel was reportedly set to issue a travel advisory warning Israelis not
to travel to India. According to the Indian government, the terrorist group Lashkar-a-Taiba, was
responsible for the attacks in November 2008, which targeted luxury hotels, a train station, and an
orthodox Jewish Lubavitch center, and left more than 170 people dead.
In December 2009, the Indian government announced it had agreed to the formation of a new
state, Telegana. The move was viewed as acquiescence by the Indian government to popular
pressure after K. Chandrasekhar Rao of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti group went on an indefinite
fast to press for the establishment of the new state. At issue was the rising climate of tension and
violence in the existing state of Andhra Pradesh from which the new Telegana state would be
derived. Telegu-speaking Andhra Pradesh was itself was created in 1953 from what is now the
Tamil-speaking state of Tamil Nadu. It came into being after a similar case of unrest and an
indefinite fast protest. While Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram said the decision
had resulted in "normalcy" being returned to Hyderabad -- the main city in the region -- it was
expected that tension would not easily be tamped down. Indeed, the very status of Hyderabad was
expected to be the focus of a forthcoming power struggle between Andhra Pradesh and Telegana.
Developments in 2010:
On February 11, 2010, a gunman shot and killed Shahid Amzi, the lawyer defending Sabahuddin
Ahmed, one of the individuals accused of orchestrating the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbia
(Bombay) that left 160 people dead. Those attacks have been attributed to the Muslim extremist
terrorist Laskhar-e-Toiba from Pakistan. While the motive for the assassination of Amzi was not
clear, it was apparent that he was shot at close range.
Then, days later, at least nine people died and close to 60 others were injured in a bomb attack at a
restaurant in India's western city of Pune. The attack appeared to target a German bakery in
Koregaon Park, which was popular with tourists and foreign nationals. The area was located close
to a Jewish Orthodox center and recalled one of the main targets of the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
India's Home Secretary G.K. Pillai said that the bomb was hidden in an unattended package in the
bakery and detonated when one of the waiters attempted to open it. The Indian authorities
dispatched anti-terrorism squads to the scene to investigate the attack and Home Minister P.
Chidambaram wasted no time is characterizing it as "a significant terrorist incident." In an
interview with Agence France Presse, he said, "All the evidence points to a deliberate plot."
Both scenarios played out days after India and Pakistan announced that they had agreed to meet
for peace talks in Delhi on February 25, 2010. This plan would constitute the first negotiations
India Review 2017
Page 62 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
since Indian suspended bilateral talks with Pakistan after the 2008 terror attacks, which were
blamed on Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, as noted above.
In mid-February 2010, a Maoist rebel attack on a police camp left at least 24 people dead. The
attack also raised questions about the ability of the Indian authorities to deal with the increasing
violence being carried out by rebels and terrorists, particularly in important industrial and mining
areas. At issue, as noted by Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram, was the fact that the police
were caught unaware by the rebels. By the third week of February 2010, however, Home
Minister Chidambaram's statement that the Maoists relinquish violence as a pre-condition for talks
with the government appeared to have held resonance. A senior Maoist rebel leader, Koteswara
Rao, tabled the option of a ceasefire. In an interview with BBC News, Rao said, "First let us have
a ceasefire and stop killing each other. Then we will see whether we can talk meaningfully."
On April 6, 2010, Maoist rebels in eastern India ambushed the government forces, leaving at least
70 troops dead. According to the Hindustan Times, the attack happened just as troops from the
Central Reserve Police Force were returning to a base camp close to the Maoist rebel stronghold of
Dantewada. Indian officials said that about 1,000 rebels may have been involved in the
orchestration of the attack.
On September 13, 2010, violence erupted in Indian-administered Kashmir. Protestors reportedly
gathered to protest the desecration of the Koran in the United States in defiance of curfews. The
demonstrations turned violent as a mob set a government building and a Protestant school ablaze,
and then attacked a police station, while chanting anti-Indian and anti-American slogans. Police
opened fire on the protestors killing at least 18 civilians. As many as 100 others were wounded in
the chaos.
The eruption of violence was not sudden as protests have been ongoing for several months,
originating in June 2010 when a 17-year-old student died after being hit by a tear gas shell during
protests in Srinagar. This manifestation of violence in Muslim-dominated Kashmir appeared to
have been sparked by the controversy in the United States about an American pastor's plans to
burn the Koran on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in that country.
As news filters through to Kashmiris that the American pastor did not actually go through with his
plans to desecrate the Koran, it was possible that the rising tide of anti-American sentiment in
Kashmir could subside. However, antipathy towards India, which has jurisdiction over Muslimdominated Kashmir, was not likely to decrease in the near future. Instead, the fight to wrest control
of Kashmir from India to Pakistan may well be revitalized among militants, effectively refocusing
the main flashpoint on the Indian subcontinent between Indians and Pakistanis for more than five
decades.
Indeed, anti-Indian antagonism was in high gear by September 18, 2010 when protestors defied a
India Review 2017
Page 63 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
curfew and clashed with police, resulting in several deaths. Almost all of the people killed were
those engaged in clashes with government forces. In one case, local mourners at a funeral claimed
that the government forces opened fire on them, but other reports indicated that some of the
mourners were trying to set fire to the home of a pro-India politician. Regardless of the veracity of
either side's claims, it was apparent that the Kashmir issue was once again emerging as a key
concern on the Indian sub-continent.
In October 2010, a report by The Guardian of the United Kingdom was published citing classified
documents from the Indian government indicating the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence
services in the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. Included in the report was information about the
interrogation of David Headley, a Pakistani-American militant who was arrested and detained in the
United States in 2009, in which he asserted that Pakistani intelligence services provided support for
the deadly bombings. Headley detailed meetings between Pakistani intelligence services personnel
and senior militants from Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) -- the terrorist group responsible for the Mumbai
attacks. Headley also noted that at least two of his missions to carry out surveillance of the targets
in Mumbai had been funded, at least in part, by Pakistani intelligence services.
Headley described the motivation behind Pakistani intelligence services' support for the attacks on
India as being rooted in a desire to shore up militant groups with closer ties to the Pakistani state,
who were being displaced by radical groups antagonistic to the state. In effect, while LeT may be
regarded by the international community as a deadly and dangerous terrorist enclave, the Pakistani
government finds LeT's regional interest in the control over Kashmir to be less of a threat to its
own lock on power than the likes of the Taliban and other al-Qaida linked terror groups, which
seek the overthrow of the Pakistani government. According to Headley, Pakistani intelligence
hoped that a spectacular terror attack by LeT would mitigate the "integration" between Kashmirfocused terror groups and "Taliban-based outfits," viewed as a threat to the Pakistani state.
Developments (2011-2012):
On July 13, 2011, a series of three bombs exploded india's financial hub of Mumbai (Bombay).
The near-simultaneous explosions, which appeared to be the result of coordinated terrorism
according to the Indian Home Ministry, occurred at the Opera House, Zaveri Bazaar, and around
Dadar district in the middle of the rush hour as workers made their way home. The death toll was
estimated to be around 20, with more than 130 other being injured. Initial blame was placed on a
terrorism enclave known as Indian Mujahideen, which Delhi Police noted have had a pattern of
carrying out attacks on the 13th or 26th days of a given month. The National Investigation Agency
(NIA) has been dispatched to the attack sites in Mumbai to probe this incidence of apparent
terrorism. These attacks came three years after the infamous 2008 terrorism assault on Mumbai
by ten gunmen, which left 166 people dead. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh condemned these
2011 bombings and called on residents of Mumbai "to remain calm and show a united face." Still,
India Review 2017
Page 64 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
major Indian cities were all placed on a state of high alert with a commando team was standing by
in Mumbai.
August 2011 saw the popular following of an anti-corruption activist gain steam in India. Anna
Hazare, a follower of Mahatma Gandhi, launched a hunger strike in a bid to draw attention to the
problem of corruption in that country. At issue was Hazare's push for a stronger citizens'
ombudsman bill against graft, known as the "Jan Lokpal."
An earlier hunger strike in April 2011 led to the incorporation of 34 of 40 principles sought by
Hazare in the Jan Lokpal. The government refused to include Hazare's demand that an
ombudsman should have power to investigate prime minister, members of parliament, and senior
judges; this decision motivated Hazare to resume a his hunger strike. As stated by Hazare, "So I
have decided until my last breath, until the government gives in to this issue, I will not turn back. I
don't care even if I die."
With Hazare utilizing Gandhi's style of passive activism, and with large swaths of the Indian
citizenry showing support for the 74-year old, the Indian authorities took the elderly activist into
protective custody. An angry outcry by the public soon forced the Indian government to release
Hazare from jail, but not before tens of thousands of people had taken to the streets and as many
as 2,600 had been detained by police. Under political fire, the Indian authorities eventually
released the detainees. However, the Indian government's poor handling of the situation served
only to further raise the ire of the Indian people, and caused disruptions in parliament where a
collection of economic and reform bills were being pushed forward.
As August 2011 was drawing to a close, members of parliament and politicians from various
political parties joined ranks to appeal to Hazare to end his hunger strike, which was now ongoing
for past a week. For his part, Hazare dismissed the advise of doctors that he be placed on an
intravenous drip to help him rehydrate.
Meanwhile, talks were going on between Hazare's intermediaries and the government to come to
some sort of resolution on the imbroglio over the anti-corruption legislation. While a resolution
was being sought, there were some rumblings from within the political ranks who warned that the
tactics undertaken by Hazare effectively undermine the sovereignty of the government.
This anti-corruption agenda was being advanced at a time when the Indian government was being
rocked by a series of corruption and graft scandals. In the background of those concerns was the
overall economic climate in which the country was being hit by high inflation and rising food
prices.
On Sept. 7, 2011, the Indian capital city of Delhi was rocked by terrorism when a bomb attack
targeted the high court. Approximately a dozen people were killed, while more than 60 others
were injured as a result of the brutal attack. A few days later, the death toll was revised to more
India Review 2017
Page 65 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
than a dozen with around 80 people injured. The bomb, which was planted in a suitcase, was
detonated in close proximity to the court's security checkpoint at a time when many people were
standing in lines waiting for passes the enter the building. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
characterized the bombing as a "cowardly act of a terrorist nature."
The extremist group, Harkat-ul Jihad al-Islami (Huji), claimed responsibility for the attack. It
should be noted that the claim of responsibility by Huji was delivered via email and originated at a
cyber cafe in Indian-administered Kashmir. Indian authorities were hesitant to accept Huji as the
culprit, noting that the terrorist group of Pakistani origins has not been active in Indian territory for
some time. Complicating matters was a counter-claim of responsibility from Indian Mujahideen.
Director General S.C. Sinha of India's National Investigation Agency said that they were vigorously
investigating the possibility that Huji -- a known and notorious terrorist group -- was indeed behind
the bombing. According to the United States Department of State, Huji has been linked with the
Islamist Jihadist terrorist enclave, al-Qaida, and has been deemed responsible for attacks in India,
Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The leader of Huji, Ilyas Kashmiri, was believed to have been
eliminated as a result of a United States drone strike in north-western Pakistan some months prior.
The attack raised questions as to whether or not Indian authorities were capable of protecting the
country from the scourge of terrorism, despite a state of heightened security following the 2008
terror attacks in Mumbai (Bombay). As reported by BBC News, this question was posed by an
opposition member of parliament, Arun Jaitley, as follows: "Have we become so vulnerable that
terrorist groups can almost strike at will?" For his part, the Indian head of government noted that
the war against terrorism would continue for some time. In an interview with media, Prime
Minister Singh said, "This is a long war in which all political parties, all the the people of India,
have to stand united so that this scourge of terrorism is crushed."
On Feb. 13, 2012, Israel's embassies in India and Georgia were struck by bomb attacks. In the
Indian capital city, a magnetic bomb attached to a vehicle left the wife of an Israeli diplomat
wounded as she traveled to retrieve her children from school at the American embassy. She was
said to be in stable condition in a New Delhi hospital. In the Georgian capital, a bomb was
discovered attached to a car in the Israeli diplomatic fleet. Georgian police were able to defuse the
bomb after an Israeli embassy employee alerted them to the situation in Tbilisi.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasted no time in accusing Iran of being behind the
two bombs, characterizing Iran as "the greatest exporter of terror in the world." Netanyahu also
observed that there were recent thwarted attacks on Jews and Israelis in places such as Azerbaijan
and Thailand,. Speaking of this trend, the Israeli prime minister noted, "In all these cases, the
elements behind the attacks were Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah." Israel said that its foreign
missions would be placed on high alert, given the current landscape.
While Iran offered no immediate response, it was certainly the case that Tehran had promised to
India Review 2017
Page 66 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
seek revenge for a number of targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, which that
country blames on Israel.
In April 2012, India reportedly launched its long-range Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile.
The Agni-V missile -- named for its Hindu and Sanskrit meaning of "fire" -- is capable of carrying a
nuclear warhead and has a range of more than 3,100 miles (or 5,000 kilometers). With that range,
this missile could conceivably reach several major Chinese cities. The Agni-V is among India's
most sophisticated weaponry and appeared to be aimed at displaying its nuclear deterrence
program.
An (indirect) presidential election was scheduled to be held in India on July 19, 2012. In India, the
president is the titular head of state (distinct from the prime minister who is the head of
government), and is elected for a five-year term by an electoral college consisting of elected
members from both houses of the "Sansad" (Parliament) and the legislatures of the states.
In 2012, the major contenders for the presidency were Pranab Mukherjee, of the ruling United
Progressive Alliance party, and P.A. Sangma, a former speaker of the Indian parliament and the
candidate of the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance.
All expectations were that Mukherjee would secure the presidency, given the ruling party's
dominance in parliament, whose votes are crucial to the outcome of the election. Indeed, with the
votes counted it was Mukherjee who emerged victorious. According to the independent Election
Commission Mukherjee secured an overwhelming victory having won more than 558,000 votes
against 240,000 votes by Sangma. Accordingly, Mukherjee was set to be sworn into office as
India's new president on July 25, 2012.
Note: Pranab Mukherjee, of the ruling United Progressive Alliance party, holds two master's
degrees as well as a law degree. A native of the eastern state of West Bengal, he has served in a
number of capacities in India's ruling Congress party and held a number of key ministerial
portfolios, including defense and foreign affairs.
In August 2012, the opposition candidate in India's 2012 presidential candidate, P.A. Sangma,
was challenging the legitimacy of newly-elected Pranab Mukherjee in the post of head of state.
India's indirect presidential election was held a month prior in July 2012 and was a contest
primarily between Pranab Mukherjee, of the ruling United Progressive Alliance Party, and P.A.
Sangma, a former speaker of the Indian parliament and the candidate of the main opposition
Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance. In India, the president is the titular head
of state (distinct from the prime minister who is the head of government), and is elected for a fiveyear term by an electoral college consisting of elected members from both houses of the "Sansad"
(Parliament) and the legislatures of the states. Because of the dominance of the United
India Review 2017
Page 67 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Progressive Alliance party in these bodies, it was Mukherjee who secured the presidency.
According to the independent Election Commission Mukherjee secured an overwhelming victory
having won more than 558,000 votes against 240,000 votes by Sangma; he was sworn into office
as India's new president on July 25, 2012.
A month later in the third week of August 2012, Sangma -- the losing candidate from the main
opposition Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance -- move to advance a legal
challenge of Mukherjee's legitimacy as president. Sangma was charging that Mukherjee held a
"for profit" office as the Chairman of Indian Statistical Institute at the time of his nomination, and
that proper procedure was not followed as regards Mukherjee's resignation from the institute.
The move by Sangma heralded only the second time in India's modern history that a president's
election has been subject to challenge. Indeed, the year 1969 saw the election of President V.V.
Giri challenged, although the petition was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court. It was yet
to be seen if this legal challenge would end in a similar manner.
2013 Update:
On Feb. 21, 2013, several people were killed and dozens more were injured when two bombs
exploded in the Indian city of Hyderabad -- the capital of the southern state of Andhra Pradesh.
The first blast ensued at a park while the second one took place at a restaurant. The bombs
appeared to have been attached to bicycles. Indian police officials said the two bombings
constituted a terrorist attack. V. Dinesh Reddy, the director general of police, said in an interview
with The Hindu, "It appears to be a terrorist attack, though we have not yet got full information of
the incident. At least 10 are dead."
Indian Home Affairs Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde said that the federal government had warned
state governments that an attack was imminent, although the precise location was unknown.
Shinde said, "We have had some information for the last two days of such an incident. At this
stage it is difficult to say more." Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh promised
retribution and accountability via the social media outlet, Twitter, as he declared: "This is a
dastardly attack, the guilty will not go unpunished."
It should be noted that Hyderabad was not new to violence, having been the target of terrorism
before. In 2007, two bombs rocked Hyderabad, killing more than 40 people. Several other bombs
were found throughout the city at the time and had to be defused by police. The banned Harkatul-Jihad-al-Islami militant entity from Bangladesh, known as "Huji," was suspected as being
behind the blasts. Suspicion also fell on extremist entities from Andhra Pradesh.
In regards to the 2013 attacks in Hyderabad, investigators were searching for evidence and a
motive for the violence. At the top of the list of likely suspects was the Islamic militant group,
India Review 2017
Page 68 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Indian Mujahideen. Individuals from the group, which has links to extremist Islamic militants in
Pakistan, were arrested in 2012 and during questioning at the time admitted that they had done
reconnaissance of a Hyderabad district where these 2013 blasts ultimately occurred.
There were also suggestions that the 2013 terror attacks in Hyderabad might be connected with the
recent execution of an Islamic militant responsible for the 2001 terror assault on the Indian
parliament. That 2001 terror assault was linked to two Pakistan-based terrorist groups Lashkar-eTaiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, with control over contested Kashmir at the center of their
grievances.
At the start of May 2013, an Indian national who was convicted of spying by a court in Pakistan
and subsequently jailed in that country as he awaited a death sentence, died at the hands of fellow
inmates. At issue in that court case was Sarabjit Singh's role in a series of bomb attacks that left
14 people dead in Pakistan in 1990. Singh and his family have long insisted that he was innocent
and accidentally strayed into Pakistani territory where he was arrested. However, those claims fell
on deaf ears in Pakistan with mercy petition after mercy petition rejected by both the Pakistani
court system and then-President Pervez Musharraf.
Now, in 2013, Sarabjit Singh had been attacked by his fellow prisoners at the Kot Lakhpat jail in
the Pakistani city of Lahore; he succumbed to a coma and was taken to the Jinnah hospital where
he died.
Indians at home recoiled in horror at the news while the office Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh demanded that the perpetrators be brought to justice for their "barbaric" attack. The Indian
prime minister also addressed the issue personally, asserting via the social media venue Twitter,
"Particularly regrettable that the Govt of Pakistan did not heed the pleas.... to take a humanitarian
view of this case." The incident was not expected to help relations between the two nuclearized
countries on the Indian subcontinent -- India and Pakistan -- who had already fought a few wars
and remained at odds over Kashmir's jurisdiction.
It should be noted that on the day Singh was cremated, a Pakistani prisoner , Sanaullah Ranjay,
was attacked by a fellow inmate at a maximum-security prison in Indian-administered Kashmir .
He ultimately died of multi-organ failure at a hospital in India. Authorities in India said that
ranjay's body would be returned to Pakistan, while Pakistani authorities demanded an investigation
into the matter. Ranjay had been held in jail for close to two decades on chargest related to
militant extremist activities.
On May 26, 2013, Maoist extremists carried out an attack on the leadership of the Congress
Party in India's Chhattisgarh state. The attack ensued when Maoist rebels ambushed the convoy
carrying Congress Party politicians and party workers as they traversed the Darba Ghati valley
after a campaign rally.
India Review 2017
Page 69 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
More than two dozen people died as a result of the attack including Nandkumar Patel, the head of
Chhattisgarh's Congress Party, his son, Dinesh Patel, and a local leader identified to be Mahendra
Karma, who led a local militia tasked with fighting the Maoists. More than 30 people were also
wounded in the attack including a former federal minister, Vidya Charan Shukla.
In response to the bloodshed, Sonia Gandhi, the president of India's Congress Party, expressed her
devastation and made a point of visting some of the injured victims along with Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh. In an interview with the media, Gandhi said: "Naturally, we are devastated. It
is despicable that ordinary people engaged in political activity were attacked." For his part, Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh condemned the "barbaric attack" and made it clear that his government
would "never bow down" before the rebels. In a statement, he said: "Government will take firm
action against the perpetrators of violence of any kind."
It should be noted that the Maoist rebels, who have also been referred to as "Naxalites," have
operated in central and eastern India for four decades. They have been carrying out a campaign
of violence and terror as they seek to overthrow what they view as India's "semi-colonial, semifeudal" system of administration and replace it with a communist state.
The Politics of Kashmir in 2013
January 2013 saw clashes erupt close to Kashmir's "Line of Control." The clashes resulted in the
deaths of two Indian soldiers as well as two Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan claimed that there had
been "unprovoked" gunfire emanating from Indian troops ahead of the death of one of their
soldiers. In response, the Indian army denied taking any provocative actions. India drew attention
to the killing of two of their soldiers in a Pakistani border attack, as well as the "barbaric"
mutilation of the bodies of the soldiers. For its part, Pakistan denied India's version of the events.
Although both countries initially appeared to be interested in de-escalating the tensions, on Jan. 12,
2013, the Indian military was hinting that it would entertain its options to counter Pakistan's
violation of a prevailing ceasefire at the Line of Control. Indian Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne
said in an interview with the media that although the two countries had mechanisms like the Line
of Control and the 2003 ceasefire agreement in place, "violations with impunity" were
"unacceptable." He continued, "We are watching the situation carefully, if the violations continue,
perhaps we may have to think of some other options for compliance."
Taking an even stronger tone, the Indian army chief, General Bikram Singh, accused Pakistan of
being involved in the planning of the attacks that left two Indian soldiers dead. He characterized the
bloodshed was "pre-meditated, pre-planned activity" and called on Indian troops to be "aggressive
and offensive in the face of provocation and fire" from Pakistan. Moreover, on Jan. 15, 2013,
India Review 2017
Page 70 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed a warning to Pakistan on the matter of
Kashmir, saying it "cannot be business as usual" with Pakistan after the deaths of two Indian
soldiers. He made particular mention of the fact that one soldier was beheaded -- an apparent
reference to the mutilation of the bodies of the soldiers noted above. In addition to the Indian army
chief's warning that "aggressive" consequences would be in the offing, Indian authorities also halted
a planned "visa on arrival" program for some Pakistani citizens.
In the second week of February 2013, violent protests broke out in the Indian-controlled Kashmir,
with more than 35 people -- including 23 policemen -- injured as a result. The eruption of violence
appeared to be in response to the execution of Mohammed Afzal Guru, who was convicted by
Indian authorities for his involvement in the 2001 terrorist attack on the Indian House of
Parliament. That attack was linked to two Pakistan-based terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and
Jaish-e-Mohammad, with control over contested Kashmir at the center of their grievances. Guru
was sentenced to death in 2004 by the Indian Supreme Court for his role in that attack that
audacious attack on the Indian parliament. The death sentence was set to be carried out in 2006,
however, it was delayed following a mercy petition by Guru's wife. Now, in 2013, the execution
had taken place, evidently sparking the anger of some in the disputed territory of Kashmir.
See "Special Note on Kashmir" below for recent developments related to this contested territory.
Primer on India's 2014 parliamentary elections
Parliamentary elections were expected to be held in India on a phased basis from
April 7, 2014, to May 12, 2014. At stake would be control over the parliament. In India, the
legislative branch of government is the bicameral "Sansad" (Parliament), which consists of the
"Rajya Sabha" (Council or House of the States) and the "Lok Sabha" (House of the People or
People's Assembly). In regards to control over the government, the action would be in the "Lok
Sabha" (House of the People or People's Assembly), composed of 545 members; members are
elected by popular vote to serve five-year terms.
Typically, the leader of the largest party or bloc in parliament leads the government as the prime
minister; he/she is expected to maintain support of the majority in this lower house of parliament.
Note that in the previous elections of 2009, outgoing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Congress
party won the most seats in the lower house over the opposing nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP). Pre-polling data for 2014 indicated a reveral of fortune for both parties was in the offing.
See "Background" below for details.
Background on 2014 elections --
India Review 2017
Page 71 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
In January 2014, India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced his retirement, saying he did
not intend to continue on as head of government, even if his Congress Party won the next
elections, which were expected to be held by mid-2014. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who
has served as head of government for more than a decade and who has generally been viewed as
an effective steward of India's economy, made note of his administration's success, saying, "An
array of historical legislations has been enacted to make the work of the government transparent
and accountable." He also defended his political legacy, pointing to his government's efforts on
behalf of the poor and on behalf of farmers, while also emphasizing that his government had
"transformed the education landscape of the country."
Looking to the future, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared: "In a few months time, after the
general election, I will hand the baton over to a new prime minister." Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh expressed confidence that his Congress Party would again secure victory (having won the
previous 2004 and 2009 elections), and so that new prime minister would be from his party. Still,
the prime minister made it clear that his time at the helm was over, saying, "I have ruled myself out
as a prime ministerial candidate." The prime minister also made note of the fact that there was a
crop of youthful party leaders that should have a chance in the limelight, noting that Rahul Gandhi
-- son of Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Congress Party -- possessed the kind of credentials
worthy of being nominated as the party's candidate. Speaking of the need to turn power over to the
younger generation, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said: "I am confident that the new generation
of our leaders will also guide this great nation successfully through the uncharted and uncertain
waters of global change."
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had harsh words for the opposition nationalist Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP), which saw success in local elections in key states in recent time. The outgoing prime
minister emphasized the importance of defeating the BJP in the national elections and vociferously
asserted that it would be "disastrous for the country" if opposition leader, Narendra Modi, were
elected as prime minister. Referring to the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in 2002 that left more than
1,000 people dead in the western state of Gujarat where Modi was chief minister, Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh disparaged the notion of the prime minister’s office being held by Modi. He
declared, "Someone who presided over the massacre of innocent people should not be the prime
minister."
By the middle of January 2014, after a meeting of senior party officials, Rahul Gandhi -- whom
outgoing Prime Minister Singh had referenced as a worthy example of the party's crop of young
leaders -- was named as the individual to lead the Congress party into the next elections. Of
course it should be noted there was no confirmation that Rahul Gandhi would actually be the
party's candidate for prime minister. As noted by the president of the Congress Party, Sonia
Gandhi, it was not traditional practice to announce a prime ministerial candidate ahead of the
elections.
India Review 2017
Page 72 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Rahul Gandhi was certainly a natural successor to the helm of leadership of the historic Congress
Party. Indeed, the Gandhi family has long been viewed as India's premier political dynasty and
certainly as the "caretakers" of sorts of India's Congress Party. Rahul Gandhi was the greatgrandson of Jawaharlal Nehru -- India's first prime minister after independence from the United
Kingdom and an icon of Indian politics for much of the 20th century. Rahul Gandhi was also the
grandson of Indira Gandhi (no relation to Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi) -- a trail blazer as India's
first female head of government. Rahul Gandhi’s father was Rajiv Gandhi who also served as
prime minister of India. After the assassination of his mother, Indira Gandhi at the hands of Sikh
extremists, Rajiv Gandhi became head of government; but he also suffered a tragic fate having
himself been assassinated -- this time by Tamil extremists. Rajiv Gandhi's widow -- an Italian
national, Sonia Gandhi -- subsequently became the head of the Congress Party. Rahul Gandhi -the son of assassinated Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi -entered the political arena himself and became the Congress Party's vice president. As discussed
here, in January 2014, he was announced as the person who would lead the Congress Party in the
next elections.
It should be noted that the Congress Party itself was suffering from lagging approval, due to a
combination of economic sluggishness, inflation, and corruption allegations. In fact, polls showed
the rival nationalist BJP (mentioned above) with the advantage at the start of 2014. The newlyformed anti-corruption Aam Admi Party was also attracting a following that could detract from the
Congress Party's goal of holding onto power by splitting the anti-BJP vote share. Election victory
for the BJP over the Congress Party would likely propel the controversial party leader, Modi, into
the position of head of government. Such a development could well spark sectarian dissonance in
India, given Modi's role in the anti-Muslim riots of 2002.
With the Congress Party likely anticipating defeat at the forthcoming polls, and with an eye on
protecting the long-term image of the young Gandhi whose career in the public sphere was only
just beginning, the incumbent ruling party made the political calculation not to set up the
forthcoming contest as a battle between Modi and Gandhi.
The Election
With the Indian election set to commence on April 7, 2014, it was apparent that polling data was
coinciding with the general perception that the BJP was set to clinch victory and its Hindu
nationalist leader, Modi, was on track to become India's next prime minister.
As the 2014 elections began, polling data reported by the news channel, CNN-IBN, and Lokniti at
the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies said the BJP was likely to capture 38 percent of
the vote share, with the ruling Congress Party-led alliance would likely take 28 percent of the vote
share. This would translate into a clear majority in parliamentary seats for the BJP and its allies
over the Congress Party-led alliance of parties.
India Review 2017
Page 73 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
By mid-April 2014, with phased voting well underway, fresh polling by the NDTV news channel
showed the BJP headed for victory but with a narrow majority of parliamentary seats.
At the start of May 2014, before the phased voting process was complete, polling data continued to
suggest that Modi and the BJP were headed for victory, effectively displacing the Congress partyled government from power. That being said, there were signs that while Modi, the BJP, and its
allies would garner a plurality of the vote share, it might fall short of an outright majority.
Meanwhile, turnout was reported to be high and marked by the increased participation of younger
and first-time voters, as well as women.
By May 12, 2014, with the phased voting process complete, exit poll data indicated that Modi and
the BJP were on track for victory. Several different polling outfits were offering estimates of the
BJP victory, suggesting the party would carry anything from 250 to 285 (273 would be needed for
outright majority). The Congress Party was expected to carry only about 100 seats. Should this
exit poll data prove predictive, Modi was set to become India's new prime minister.
It should be noted that polling data in India is notorious for being inaccurate and, indeed, failed to
measure the Congress Party's margin of victory in 2009. Of course, no official election results
would be available until later in the month (May 2014). To that end, on May 16, 2014, the
Congress Party officially conceded defeat to the BJP. A triumphant Modi -- the son of a tea stall
owner -- would likely take the reins of power as India's new prime minister and would have
strong parliamentary support to set the political agenda in India. Indeed, the BJP was on course to
secure 282 seats in the 543 seat legislative body -- a clear and convincing victory and the first
majority government in India after 25 years of coalitions. It was a mandate from the voters that
India was ready for change.
Not one to claim victory graciously, Modi lashed out at the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty that has
dominated Indian politics since independence, declaring: "Four to five generations have been
wasted since 1952, this victory has been achieved after that." Modi continued by looking towards
his political agenda as he said, "I am confident about the future of India... I firmly believe that the
emergence of India as a major powerhouse of the evolving global economy is an idea whose time
has come."
Meanwhile, within the Congress Party, both Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi said they would step
down from their leadership posts in the aftermath of the party's crushing defeat at the polls.
However, insiders refused to accept their respective resignation offers and, instead, called on Sonia
Gandhi to reform the Congress Party. This move indicated that there was no desire by the party to
sever its historic bonds with the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. It was to be seen if Sonia Gandhi’s
daughter, Priyanka Gandhi, would play a more prominent role in to future Congress Party.
India Review 2017
Page 74 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Special Note on Kashmir
In the first part of October 2014, intense fighting broke out between Pakistani and Indian forces in
the Indian-controlled region of Kashmir in the Himalayas. The clashes began at the start of
October 2014 and lasted more than a week, with nine Pakistani and eight Indian civilians being
killed in the crossfire of violence between the two sides. At least 18,000 Indian nationals fled the
area of Jammu to escape the violence, and claimed they were enduring harsh conditions at relief
camps as they waited for the fighting to end.
While Kashmir is legally under Indian jurisdiction, it is home to a mostly Muslim population and
claimed by Pakistan. For years, it has been the source of an intractable flashpoint between the two
countries, even leading to war at times. Sporadic exchanges of gun fire and even clashes erupt
despite a ceasefire that has remained mostly in tact since 2003; however, heavy fighting that leads
to the deaths of civilians, of the type experienced in October 2014 can be regarded as a relative
rarity.
India blamed Pakistan for the fighting in October 2014, saying that its own forces had retaliated to
machine gun fire and mortar attacks on various positions along the border. Throughout, India has
placed the responsibility for eruptions of fighting along the border on Pakistani troops, saying that
they have offered cover to separatists, militants, and extremists as they violated the border and
entered India's territory -- potentially with an eye on carrying out terrorist attacks in India. Indeed,
there have been no shortage of terror attacks by Pakistani Islamic terrorists on India over the issue
of Kashmir. One of the most significant was the storming of the Indian parliament in 2001 by
Pakistani Islamic extremists from Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad -- both known
Pakistani terrorist groups with aspirations in Kashmir. For its part, Pakistan typically downplays its
role as a center and venue for Islamic terrorists (facts to the contrary notwithstanding) and
normally accuses India of inflating its claims that Pakistanis are violating the border and plotting
attacks on Indian territory.
Returning to the volatile conditions in October 2014 in Kashmir, Indian authorities expressed
concern over the eruption of violence and urged a resolution. In an interview with the media, Arup
Raha, the Air Chief Marshall of the Indian Air Force said: "We are all concerned and want an early
solution to it [the clashes]." He continued, "We don't want to let the issue become serious."
In the background of these developments in Kashmir were the political dynamics in the respective
capitals of New Delhi and Islamabad.
In the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was dealing with oppostion
protests and an ineffective policy of dealing with Islamist terrorists, such as the Taliban. A
weakened Sharif became dependent on the Pakistani military to hold onto power, and thus has had
India Review 2017
Page 75 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
to concede his own predilections in favor of the military's stance towards India. That stance was
not particularly hospitable to the notion of reconciliation with India.
Meanwhile, in the Indian capital of New Delhi, newly-elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi,
whose history of hardline positions against Muslims earned him both praise and condemnations,
was riding high in a wave of popular support. As a known Hindu nationalist, he would likely be
allowed a great deal of latitude in dealing with Pakistani aggression. Modi's tougher stances with
Pakistan were illustrated by his decisions to cancel talks with Pakistan and not meet with Nawaz
during meetings of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2014.
Editor's Note on Kashmir -Kashmir has been a flashpoint for several decades. A fiercely disputed territory, Kashmir is legally
administered by India, but claimed by Pakistan. The dispute has resulted in conflicted conditions
on the Indian sub-continent, which have frequently resulted in armed conflict. Although a final
status agreement has yet to be reached, the "Line of Control" that separates Indian-controlled
Kashmir from Pakistani territory serves as the de facto international border between the two
countries. The geopolitical importance of the dispute has been confounded by both sides’
acquisition of nuclear weapons in 1998. In recent years, India has accused Pakistan of backing
militants that have attacked civilian and military targets inside Indian-controlled Kashmir. Indeed,
groups such as Lashkar e Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen have carried out terrorist attacks with an
eye on ultimately taking control of Kashmir. The group has been said that its aspirations in
Kashmir are linked with the broader jihadist efforts. Despite not being able to comprehensively
resolve the conflict, India and Pakistan have made some progress in recent years in agreeing to
establish transportation links such as a bus service across the "Line of Control," and more recently,
the easing of visa restrictions. But the clashes in early 2013, particularly punctuated by the brutal
killings of two Indian soldiers, resulted in India's decision to halt plans for a "visa on demand"
program. The eruption of violence along the border in 2014 was not expected to improve the
situation. Indeed, the political conditions in the respective capitals of New Delhi and Islamabad
were not conducive to reconciliation. Instead, the leadership in India and Pakistan were more
likely to stake out hard line -- and nationalistic -- positions, with neither side likely willing to cede
ground.
Taliban suicide bomber carries out attack on Pakistani-Indian border
At the start of November 2014, a suicide bomber carried out attack on the Pakistani-Indian border,
killing more than 45 people and injuring at least 70 more as a result. The Islamic terror group, the
Taliban, claimed responsibility for the act of violence, saying it was revenge against the Pakistani
army, which was carrying out an anti-Taliban offensive in the tribal areas on the Afghan-Pak
border. This act of revenge, however, took place at a crossing at Lahore on the border with India,
India Review 2017
Page 76 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
although no Indian troops were killed as a result. The Taliban attack on the border crossing at
Lahore on Nov. 2, 2014 in reaction to the military's offensive operation only served to underline
the reality that Islamic terror groups were, indeed, functioning in Pakistan. Indeed, they posed a
threat to regional security.
Popular Indian PM Modi faced with upheaval thanks to prosecution of several cabinet ministers
In November 2014, India's popular Prime Minister Narendra Modi was faced with upheaval within
his own government when as many as seven of his cabinet ministers were faced with prosecution.
The highly disturbing list of charges against the seven cabinet ministers newly-appointed to
government included criminal intimidation and fraud, waging war on the state, and even rape,
rioting, and attempted murder. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley dismissed the charges and declared
that claims that Prime Minister Modi's cabinet was filled with criminal were "completely baseless."
He explained to the media, "These are cases arising out of criminal accusations, not cases out of a
crime." The legitimacy of the charges aside, the fact of the matter was that the prosecutorial thrust
against so many individuals appointed by Prime Minister Modi would do little to mitigate the
burgeoning scandal. For Modi, who came to power promising to address corruption, the political
damage to his image could prove threatening.
U.S. President Obama and Indian PM Modi announce new era in bilateral friendship and
cooperation
During his official visit to the world's largest democracy -- India -- United States President Barack
Obama planted a tree and laid a wreath at the memorial for Mahatma Gandhi at Raj Ghat in New
Delhi. Paying his respects to the father of independent India, President Obama paused for
contemplation at Gandhi's memorial, and placed two handfuls of rose petals on top. President
Obama also was the main guest at India's Republic Day celebrations where he was warmly
received by the enthusiastic Indian people.
It should be noted that Indian Prime Minister Modi broke protocol to personally receive President
Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as they arrived at the airport in New Dehli. Prime
Minister Narendra Modi hailed President Obama's historic visit, noting that India and the United
States were now embarking on a "new journey" of cooperation. President Obama struck a similar
tone, saying that his country welcomed its friendship with India.
In the realm of foreign relations, on Jan. 25, 2015, President Obama issued a joint announcement
with Indian Prime Minister Modi on civilian nuclear cooperation. At issue was a breakthrough
pact that would facilitate the supply of American civilian nuclear technology to India. Also on the
agenda were new renewable energy options. United States Ambassador Richard Verma said: "It
India Review 2017
Page 77 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
opens the door for US and other companies to come forward and actually help India towards
developing nuclear power and support its non carbon-based energy production." The United
States and India also agreed to cooperate on fighting terrorism.
At the start of February 2015, Indian oficials said that the "breakthrough" civilian nuclear deal
could be finalized later in the year. United States officials have said that two items were pending
before the agreement could be finalized: 1. India would have to ratify a United Nations nuclear
convention -- the International Atomic Energy Agency's Convention on Supplementary
Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC); and 2. An insurance concord would have to be
established preventing suppliers from being subject to draconian lawsuits in the event of nuclear
disasters.
Demonstrators take to the streets in India to protest against PM Modi's economic reform agenda
At the start of September 2015, protesters took to the streets in cities across India to register their
discontent over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's economic reform package. At issue was the
prime minister's plan to stimulate India's sluggish economy and spur job creation, but which
included the relaxing of key labor laws. Unions reacted to the news with outrage and called for a
strike, which attracted the participation of close to 150 million workers in various industries
ranging from the banking and manufacturing sectors, and extending to the transportation and
construction arenas. In addition to the strike, there were also mass protests with Calcutta - home
to a strong socialist infrastructure -- attracting the most demonstrators. In parliament, opposition
parties were closing ranks in the effort to block the reform legislation sought by Prime Minister
Modi.
Indian diplomatic mission in Afghanistan targeted by Islamist militants
December 2015 was marked by a spate of attacks across Afghanistan at the hands of the notorious
Islamist extremist group, the Taliban. The start of 2016 fared no better with an attack on the
Indian diplomatic mission in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e-Sharif. The assailants were not
able to penetrate the compound for the Indian consulate and instead had occupied a building close
by. Nevertheless, there were reports of gun battles and explosions at the scene. It should be noted
that Indian diplomatic missions have long been favored targets for Islamist terrorists in
Afghanistan. The Indian embassy in Kabul was hit in both 2008 and 2009 with deadly
consequences, while the Indian consulate in Jalalabad was struck in 2013 and also led to the deaths
of several people. In 2015, the Indian consulate in Herat was the target of attack by gunmen, with
this attack at the start of 2016 being the latest effort of this type.
India Review 2017
Page 78 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
-- January 2016
Written by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, CountryWatch.com -www.countrywatch.com . Research sources listed in the Bibliography. Supplementary sources:
IPCS, New Delhi, IDSA, New Delhi, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, The Times of India
Political Risk Index
Political Risk Index
The Political Risk Index is a proprietary index measuring the level of risk posed to governments,
corporations, and investors, based on a myriad of political and economic factors. The Political Risk
Index is calculated using an established methodology by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is
based on varied criteria* including the following consideration: political stability, political
representation, democratic accountability, freedom of expression, security and crime, risk of
conflict, human development, jurisprudence and regulatory transparency, economic risk, foreign
investment considerations, possibility of sovereign default, and corruption. Scores are assigned
from 0-10 using the aforementioned criteria. A score of 0 marks the highest political risk, while a
score of 10 marks the lowest political risk. Stated differently, countries with the lowest scores pose
the greatest political risk. A score of 0 marks the most dire level of political risk and an ultimate
nadir, while a score of 10 marks the lowest possible level of political risk, according to this
proprietary index. Rarely will there be scores of 0 or 10 due to the reality that countries contain
complex landscapes; as such, the index offers a range of possibilities ranging from lesser to greater
risk.
Country
India Review 2017
Assessment
Page 79 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Afghanistan
2
Albania
4
Algeria
6
Andorra
9
Angola
4
Antigua
8
Argentina
4
Armenia
4-5
Australia
9.5
Austria
9.5
Azerbaijan
4
Bahamas
8.5
Bahrain
6
Bangladesh
3.5
Barbados
8.5-9
Belarus
3
Belgium
9
Belize
8
Page 80 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Benin
5
Bhutan
5
Bolivia
5
Bosnia-Herzegovina
4
Botswana
7
Brazil
7
Brunei
7
Bulgaria
6
Burkina Faso
4
Burma (Myanmar)
4.5
Burundi
3
Cambodia
4
Cameroon
5
Canada
9.5
Cape Verde
6
Central African Republic
3
Chad
4
Chile
9
Page 81 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
China
7
China: Hong Kong
8
China: Taiwan
8
Colombia
7
Comoros
5
Congo DRC
3
Congo RC
4
Costa Rica
8
Cote d'Ivoire
4.5
Croatia
7
Cuba
4-4.5
Cyprus
5
Czech Republic
8
Denmark
9.5
Djibouti
4.5
Dominica
7
Dominican Republic
6
East Timor
5
Page 82 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Ecuador
6
Egypt
5
El Salvador
7
Equatorial Guinea
4
Eritrea
3
Estonia
8
Ethiopia
4
Fiji
5
Finland
9
Fr.YugoslavRep.Macedonia
5
France
9
Gabon
5
Gambia
4
Georgia
5
Germany
9.5
Ghana
6
Greece
4.5-5
Grenada
8
Page 83 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Guatemala
6
Guinea
3.5
Guinea-Bissau
3.5
Guyana
4.5
Haiti
3.5
Holy See (Vatican)
9
Honduras
4.5-5
Hungary
7
Iceland
8.5-9
India
7.5-8
Indonesia
6
Iran
3.5-4
Iraq
2.5-3
Ireland
8-8.5
Israel
8
Italy
7.5
Jamaica
6.5-7
Japan
9
Page 84 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Jordan
6.5
Kazakhstan
6
Kenya
5
Kiribati
7
Korea, North
1
Korea, South
8
Kosovo
4
Kuwait
7
Kyrgyzstan
4.5
Laos
4.5
Latvia
7
Lebanon
5.5
Lesotho
6
Liberia
3.5
Libya
2
Liechtenstein
9
Lithuania
7.5
Luxembourg
9
Page 85 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Madagascar
4
Malawi
4
Malaysia
8
Maldives
4.5
Mali
4
Malta
8
Marshall Islands
6
Mauritania
4.5-5
Mauritius
7
Mexico
6.5
Micronesia
7
Moldova
5
Monaco
9
Mongolia
5
Montenegro
6
Morocco
6.5
Mozambique
4.5-5
Namibia
6.5-7
Page 86 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Nauru
6
Nepal
4
Netherlands
9.5
New Zealand
9.5
Nicaragua
5
Niger
4
Nigeria
4.5
Norway
9.5
Oman
7
Pakistan
3.5
Palau
7
Panama
7.5
Papua New Guinea
5
Paraguay
6.5-7
Peru
7
Philippines
6
Poland
8
Portugal
7.5
Page 87 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Qatar
7.5
Romania
5.5
Russia
5.5
Rwanda
5
Saint Kitts and Nevis
8
Saint Lucia
8
Saint Vincent and Grenadines
8
Samoa
7
San Marino
9
Sao Tome and Principe
5.5
Saudi Arabia
6
Senegal
6
Serbia
5
Seychelles
7
Sierra Leone
4.5
Singapore
9
Slovak Republic (Slovakia)
8
Slovenia
8
Page 88 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Solomon Islands
6
Somalia
2
South Africa
7
Spain
7.5
Sri Lanka
5
Sudan
3.5
Suriname
5
Swaziland
5
Sweden
9.5
Switzerland
9.5
Syria
2
Tajikistan
4.5
Tanzania
6
Thailand
6.5
Togo
4.5
Tonga
7
Trinidad and Tobago
8
Tunisia
6
Page 89 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Turkey
7
Turkmenistan
4.5
Tuvalu
7
Uganda
6
Ukraine
3.5-4
United Arab Emirates
7
United Kingdom
9
United States
9.5
Uruguay
8
Uzbekistan
4
Vanuatu
7
Venezuela
4
Vietnam
5
Yemen
3
Zambia
4.5
Zimbabwe
3
*Methodology
The Political Risk Index is calculated by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on the
India Review 2017
Page 90 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
combined scoring of varied criteria as follows -1. political stability (record of peaceful transitions of power, ability of government to stay in office
and carry out policies as a result of productive executive-legislative relationship, perhaps with
popular support vis a vis risk of government collapse)
2. political representation (right of suffrage, free and fair elections, multi-party participation, and
influence of foreign powers)
3. democratic accountability (record of respect for political rights, human rights, and civil liberties,
backed by constitutional protections)
4. freedom of expression (media freedom and freedom of expression, right to dissent or express
political opposition, backed by constitutional protections)
5. security and crime (the degree to which a country has security mechanisms that ensures safety
of citizens and ensures law and order, without resorting to extra-judicial measures)
6. risk of conflict (the presence of conflict; record of coups or civil disturbances; threat of war;
threats posed by internal or external tensions; threat or record of terrorism or insurgencies)
7. human development (quality of life; access to education; socio-economic conditions; systemic
concern for the status of women and children)
8. jurisprudence and regulatory transparency (the impartiality of the legal system, the degree of
transparency within the regulatory system of a country and the durability of that structure)
9. economic conditions (economic stability, investment climate, degree of nationalization of
industries, property rights, labor force development)
10. corruption ( the degree of corruption in a country and/or efforts by the government to address
graft and other irregularities)
Editor's Note:
As of 2015, the current climate of upheaval internationally -- both politically and economically -has affected the ratings for several countries across the world.
North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Zimbabwe -- retain their low rankings.
India Review 2017
Page 91 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Several Middle Eastern and North African countries, such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq
and Yemen were downgraded in recent years due to political instability occurring in the "season of
unrest" sweeping the region since 2011 and continuing today. The worst downgrades affected
Syria where civil war is at play, along with the rampage of terror being carried out by Islamist
terrorists who have also seized control over part of Syrian territory. Iraq has been further
downgraded due to the rampage of Islamist terrorists and their takeover of wide swaths of Iraqi
territory. Libya has also been downgraded further due to its slippage into failed state status; at
issue in Libya have been an ongoing power struggle between rival militias. Yemen continues to
hold steady with a poor ranking due to continued unrest at the hands of Houthi rebels,
secessinionists, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, and Islamic State. Its landscape has been
further complicated by the fact that it is now the site of a proxy war between Iran and Saudi
Arabia. Conversely, Tunisia and Egypt have seen slight upgrades as these countries stabilize.
In Africa, Zimbabwe continues to be one of the bleak spots of the world with the Mugabe regime
effectively destroying the country's once vibrant economy, and miring Zimbabwe with an
exceedingly high rate of inflation, debilitating unemployment, devolving public services, and critical
food shortages; rampant crime and political oppression round out the landscape. Somalia also
sports a poor ranking due to the continuing influence of the terror group, al-Shabab, which was not
operating across the border in Kenya. On the upside, Nigeria, which was ineffectively dealing with
the threat posed by the terror group, Boko Haram, was making some strides on the national
security front with its new president at the helm. Mali was slightly upgraded due to its efforts to
return to constitutional order following the 2012 coup and to neutralize the threat of separatists and
Islamists. But the Central African Republic was downgraded due to the takeover of the
government by Muslim Seleka rebels and a continued state of lawlessness in that country. South
Sudan -- the world's newest nation state -- has not been officially included in this assessment;
however, it can be unofficially assessed to be in the vicinity of "3" due to its manifold political and
economic challenges. Burkina Faso, Burundi and Guinea have been downgraded due to political
unrest, with Guinea also having to deal with the burgeoning Ebola crisis.
In Europe, Ukraine was downgraded due to the unrest facing that country following its Maidan
revolution that triggered a pro-Russian uprising in the eastern part of the country. Russia was also
implicated in the Ukrainian crisis due to its intervention on behalf of pro-Russian separatists, as
well as its annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Strains on the infrastructure of
southern and eastern European countries, such as Serbia, Croatia, and Hungary, due to an influx of
refugees was expected to pose social and economic challenges, and slight downgrades were made
accordingly. So too, a corruption crisis for the Romanian prime minister has affected the ranking
of that country. Meanwhile, the rankings for Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy were maintained
due to debt woes and the concomitant effect on the euro zone. Greece, another euro zone nation,
was earlier downgraded due to its sovereign debt crisis; however, no further downgrade was added
since the country was able to successfully forge a bailout rescue deal with creditor institutions.
Cyprus' exposure to Greek banks yielded a downgrade in its case.
India Review 2017
Page 92 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
In Asia, Nepal was downgraded in response to continuous political instability and a constitutional
crisis that prevails well after landmark elections were held. Both India and China retain their
rankings; India holds a slightly higher ranking than China due to its record of democratic
representation and accountability. Increasing violence and political instability in Pakistan resulted in
a downgrade for this country's already low rating. Meanwhile, Singapore retained its strong
rankings due to its continued effective stewardship of the economy and political stability.
In the Americas, ongoing political and economic woes, as well as crime and corruption have
affected the rankings for Mexico , Guatemala, and Brazil. Argentina was downgraded due to its
default on debt following the failure of talks with bond holders. Venezuela was downgraded due to
its mix of market unfriendly policies and political oppression. For the moment, the United States
maintains a strong ranking along with Canada, and most of the English-speaking countries of the
Caribbean; however, a renewed debt ceiling crisis could cause the United States to be downgraded
in a future edition. Finally, a small but significant upgrade was attributed to Cuba due to its recent
pro-business reforms and its normalization of ties with the Unitd States.
Source:
Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com
Updated:
2015
Political Stability
Political Stability
The Political Stability Index is a proprietary index measuring a country's level of stability,
standard of good governance, record of constitutional order, respect for human rights, and overall
strength of democracy. The Political StabilityIndex is calculated using an established methodology*
by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on a given country's record of peaceful
transitions of power, ability of a government to stay in office and carry out its policies vis a vis risk
credible risks of government collapse. Threats include coups, domestic violence and instability,
terrorism, etc. This index measures the dynamic between the quality of a country's government
India Review 2017
Page 93 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
and the threats that can compromise and undermine stability. Scores are assigned from 0-10 using
the aforementioned criteria. A score of 0 marks the lowest level of political stability and an
ultimate nadir, while a score of 10 marks the highest level of political stability possible, according to
this proprietary index. Rarely will there be scores of 0 or 10 due to the reality that countries
contain complex landscapes; as such, the index offers a range of possibilities ranging from lesser to
greater stability.
India Review 2017
Country
Assessment
Afghanistan
2
Albania
4.5-5
Algeria
5
Andorra
9.5
Angola
4.5-5
Antigua
8.5-9
Argentina
7
Armenia
5.5
Australia
9.5
Austria
9.5
Azerbaijan
5
Bahamas
9
Bahrain
6
Page 94 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Bangladesh
4.5
Barbados
9
Belarus
4
Belgium
9
Belize
8
Benin
5
Bhutan
5
Bolivia
6
Bosnia-Herzegovina
5
Botswana
8.5
Brazil
7
Brunei
8
Bulgaria
7.5
Burkina Faso
4
Burma (Myanmar)
4.5
Burundi
4
Cambodia
4.5-5
Cameroon
6
Page 95 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Canada
9.5
Cape Verde
6
Central African Republic
3
Chad
4.5
Chile
9
China
7
China: Hong Kong
8
China: Taiwan
8
Colombia
7.5
Comoros
5
Congo DRC
3
Congo RC
5
Costa Rica
9.5
Cote d'Ivoire
3.5
Croatia
7.5
Cuba
4.5
Cyprus
8
Czech Republic
8.5
Page 96 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Denmark
9.5
Djibouti
5
Dominica
8.5
Dominican Republic
7
East Timor
5
Ecuador
7
Egypt
4.5-5
El Salvador
7.5-8
Equatorial Guinea
4.5
Eritrea
4
Estonia
9
Ethiopia
4.5
Fiji
5
Finland
9
Fr.YugoslavRep.Macedonia
6.5
France
9
Gabon
5
Gambia
4.5
Page 97 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Georgia
5
Germany
9.5
Ghana
7
Greece
6
Grenada
8.5
Guatemala
7
Guinea
3.5-4
Guinea-Bissau
4
Guyana
6
Haiti
3.5-4
Holy See (Vatican)
9.5
Honduras
6
Hungary
7.5
Iceland
9
India
8
Indonesia
7
Iran
3.5
Iraq
2.5
Page 98 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Ireland
9.5
Israel
8
Italy
8.5-9
Jamaica
8
Japan
9
Jordan
6
Kazakhstan
6
Kenya
5
Kiribati
8
Korea, North
2
Korea, South
8.5
Kosovo
5.5
Kuwait
7
Kyrgyzstan
5
Laos
5
Latvia
8.5
Lebanon
5.5
Lesotho
5
Page 99 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Liberia
3.5-4
Libya
2
Liechtenstein
9
Lithuania
9
Luxembourg
9.5
Madagascar
4
Malawi
5
Malaysia
8
Maldives
4.5-5
Mali
4.5-5
Malta
9
Marshall Islands
8
Mauritania
6
Mauritius
8
Mexico
6.5-7
Micronesia
8
Moldova
5.5
Monaco
9.5
Page 100 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Mongolia
6.5-7
Montenegro
8
Morocco
7
Mozambique
5
Namibia
8.5
Nauru
8
Nepal
4.5
Netherlands
9.5
New Zealand
9.5
Nicaragua
6
Niger
4.5
Nigeria
4.5
Norway
9.5
Oman
7
Pakistan
3
Palau
8
Panama
8.5
Papua New Guinea
6
Page 101 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Paraguay
8
Peru
7.5
Philippines
6
Poland
9
Portugal
9
Qatar
7
Romania
7
Russia
6
Rwanda
5
Saint Kitts and Nevis
9
Saint Lucia
9
Saint Vincent and Grenadines
9
Samoa
8
San Marino
9.5
Sao Tome and Principe
7
Saudi Arabia
6
Senegal
7.5
Serbia
6.5
Page 102 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Seychelles
8
Sierra Leone
4.5
Singapore
9.5
Slovak Republic (Slovakia)
8.5
Slovenia
9
Solomon Islands
6.5-7
Somalia
2
South Africa
7.5
Spain
9
Sri Lanka
5
Sudan
3
Suriname
5
Swaziland
5
Sweden
9.5
Switzerland
9.5
Syria
2
Tajikistan
4.5
Tanzania
6
Page 103 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Thailand
6
Togo
5
Tonga
7
Trinidad and Tobago
8
Tunisia
5
Turkey
7.5
Turkmenistan
5
Tuvalu
8.5
Uganda
6
Ukraine
3.5-4
United Arab Emirates
7
United Kingdom
9
United States
9
Uruguay
8.5
Uzbekistan
4
Vanuatu
8.5
Venezuela
4.5-5
Vietnam
4.5
Page 104 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Yemen
2.5
Zambia
5
Zimbabwe
3
*Methodology
The Political Stability Index is calculated by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on the
combined scoring of varied criteria as follows -1. record of peaceful transitions of power ( free and fair elections; adherence to political accords)
2. record of democratic representation, presence of instruments of democracy; systemic
accountability
3. respect for human rights; respect for civil rights
4. strength of the system of jurisprudence, adherence to constitutional order, and good governance
5. ability of a government to stay in office and carry out its policies vis a vis risk credible risks of
government collapse (i.e. government stability versus a country being deemed "ungovernable")
6. threat of coups, insurgencies, and insurrection
7. level of unchecked crime and corruption
8. risk of terrorism and other threats to national security
9. relationship with regional powers and international community; record of bilateral or multilateral
cooperation
10. degree of economic strife (i.e. economic and financial challenges)
Editor's Note:
As of 2015, the current climate of upheaval internationally -- both politically and economically -India Review 2017
Page 105 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
has affected the ratings for several countries across the world. The usual suspects -- North Korea,
Afghanistan, and Somalia -- retain their low rankings. The reclusive and ultra-dictatorial North
Korean regime, which has terrified the world with its nuclear threats, has exhibited internal
instability. Of note was a cut-throat purge of hundreds of high ranking officials deemed to be a
threat to Kim Jung-un. Despite their attempts to recover from years of lawlessness, war, and
warlordism, both Afghanistan and Somalia continue to be beset by terrorism and turmoil. In
Afghanistan, while international forces have seen success in the effort against the terror group, alQaida, the other Islamist extremist group, the Taliban, continues to carry out a vicious insurgency
using terrorism. In Somalia, while the government attempts to do the nation's business, the terror
group, al-Shabab continues to make its presence known not only in Somalia, but across the border
into Kenya with devastating results/ Also in this category is Iraq, which continues to be rocked
by horrific violence and terrorism at the hands of Islamic State, which has taken over wide swaths
of Iraqi territory.
Syria, Libya, and Yemen have been added to this unfortunate echelon of the world's most
politically unstable countries. Syria has been mired by the twin hazards of 1. a civil war as rebels
oppose the Assad regime; and 2. the rampage of terror being carried out by Islamic State, which
also seized control over vast portions of Syrian territory. Meanwhile, the post-Qaddhafi landscape
of Libya has devolved into chaos as rival militias battle for control -- the elected government of the
country notwithstanding. Rounding out this grim triad is Yemen, which was dealing with a Houthi
rebellion, secesionists in the south, as well as the threat of terrorism from al-Qaida in the Arabian
Peninsula as well as Islamic State, while also being the site of a proxy war between Shi'a Iran and
Sunni Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, several Middle Eastern and North African countries, such as Tunisia, Egypt, and
Bahrain were downgraded in recent years due to political instability occurring in the "season of
unrest" sweeping the region since 2011 and continuing today. All three of these countries have
stabilized in recent years and have been upgraded accordingly. In Bahrain, the landscape had
calmed. In Egypt, the secular military-backed government has generated criticism for its
crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood; however, the country had ratified the presidency via
democratic elections and were on track to hold parliamentary elections as the country moved along
the path of democratization. Perhaps the most impressive story was coming out of Tunisia -- the
country whose Jasmine Revolution sparked the entire Arab Spring -- and where after a few years
of strife, a new progressive constitution was passed into law and a secular government had been
elected to power. Tunisia, Egypt, and Bahrain have seen slight upgrades as these countries
stabilize.
In Africa, the Central African Republic was downgraded the previous year due to the takeover of
the government by Muslim Seleka rebels. Although the country has been trying to emerge from
this crisis, the fact of the matter was that it was difficult to halt the precipitous decline into
lawlessness in that country. Zimbabwe has maintained its consistently poor ranking due to the
India Review 2017
Page 106 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
dictatorial regime of Mugabe, who continues to hold a tight grip on power, intimidates the
opposition, squashes dissent, and oppresses the white farmer population of the country. Moving in
a slightly improved direction is Nigeria, which has sported abysmal ratings due to the government's
fecklessness in dealing with the threat posed by the Islamist terror group, Boko Haram. Under its
newly-elected government, there appears to be more of a concerted effort to make national
security a priority action item. Mali was also slightly upgraded due to its efforts to return to
constitutional order following the 2012 coup and to neutralize the threat of separatists and
Islamists. Political instability has visited Burkina Faso and Burundi as the leaders of those
countries attempted to side-step constitutional limits to hold onto power. In Burundi, an attempted
coup ensued but quelled, and the president won a (questionable) new term in office; unrest has
since punctuated the landscape. In Burkina Faso, the political climate has turned stormy as a result
of a successful coup that ended the rule of the president, and then a putsch against the transitional
government. These two African countries have been downgraded as a result.
It should be noted that the African country of South Sudan -- the world's newest nation state -- has
not been officially included in this assessment; however, it can be unofficially assessed to be in the
vicinity of "3" due to its manifold political and economic challenges. Guinea has endured poor
rankings throughout, but was slightly downgraded further over fears of social unrest and the Ebola
heath crisis.
In Europe, Ukraine was downgraded due to the unrest facing that country following its Maidan
revolution that triggered a pro-Russian uprising in the eastern part of the country. Russia was also
implicated in the Ukrainian crisis due to its intervention on behalf of pro-Russian separatists, as
well as its annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Serbia and Albania were slightly
downgraded due to eruptions of unrest, while Romania was slightly downgraded on the basis of
corruption charges against the prime minister. Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy were downgraded
due to debt woes and the concomitant effect on the euro zone. Greece, another euro zone nation,
was downgraded the previous year due to its sovereign debt crisis; however, the country
successfully forged a rescue deal with international creditors and stayed within the Euro zone.
Greek voters rewarded the hitherto unknown upstart party at the polls for these efforts. As a
result, Greece was actually upgraded slightly as it proved to the world that it could endure the
political and economic storms. Meanwhile, Germany, France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom,
the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries continue to post impressive ranking consistent
with these countries' strong records of democracy, freedom, and peaceful transfers of power.
In Asia, Nepal was downgraded in response to continuous political instability well after landmark
elections that prevails today. Cambodia was very slighly downgraded due to post-election
instability that has resulted in occasional flares of violence. Despite the "trifecta of tragedy" in
Japan in 2011 -- the earthquake, the ensuing tsunami, and the resulting nuclear crisis -- and the
appreciable destabilization of the economic and political terrain therein, this country has only
slightly been downgraded. Japan's challenges have been assessed to be transient, the government
India Review 2017
Page 107 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
remains accountable, and there is little risk of default. Both India and China retain their rankings;
India holds a slightly higher ranking than China due to its record of democratic representation and
accountability. Increasing violence and political instability in Pakistan resulted in a downgrade for
this country's already low rating.
In the Americas, Haiti retained its downgraded status due to ongoing political and economic woes.
Mexico was downgraded due to its alarming rate of crime. Guatemala was downgraded due to
charges of corruption, the arrest of the president, and uncertainty over the outcome of elections.
Brazil was downgraded due to the corruption charges erupting on the political landscape, the
stalling of the economy, and the increasingly loud calls for the impeachment of President
Rousseff. Argentina was downgraded due to its default on debt following the failure of talks with
bond holders. Venezuela was downgraded due to the fact that the country's post-Chavez
government is every bit as autocratic and nationalistic, but even more inclined to oppress its
political opponents. Colombia was upgraded slightly due to efforts aimed at securing a peace deal
with the FARC insurgents. A small but significant upgrade was attributed to Cuba due to its recent
pro-business reforms and its normalization of ties with the Unitd States. Meanwhile, the United
States, Canada, Costa Rica, Panama, and most of the English-speaking countries of the Caribbean
retain their strong rankings due to their records of stability and peaceful transfers of power.
In the Pacific, Fiji was upgraded due to its return to constitutional order and democracy with the
holding of the first elections in eight years.
In Oceania, Maldives has been slightly downgraded due to the government's continued and rather
relentless persecution of the country's former pro-democracy leader - former President Nasheed.
Source:
Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com
Updated:
2015
India Review 2017
Page 108 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Freedom Rankings
Freedom Rankings
Freedom in the World
Editor's Note: This ranking by Freedom House quantifies political freedom and civil liberties into a
single combined index on each sovereign country's level of freedom and liberty. The initials "PR"
and "CL" stand for Political Rights and Civil Liberties, respectively. The number 1 represents the
most free countries and the number 7 represents the least free. Several countries fall in the
continuum in between. The freedom ratings reflect an overall judgment based on survey results.
Country
Afghanistan
PR
6?
CL
Freedom Status
6
Not Free
Albania*
3
3
Partly Free
Algeria
6
5
Not Free
Andorra*
1
1
Free
Angola
6
5
Not Free
2
Free
Antigua and Barbuda*
3?
Argentina*
2
2
Free
Armenia
6
4
Partly Free
Australia*
1
1
Free
Austria*
1
1
Free
India Review 2017
Trend
Arrow
Page 109 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Azerbaijan
6
5
Not Free
Bahamas*
1
1
Free
Bahrain
6?
5
Not Free ?
Bangladesh*
3?
4
Partly Free
Barbados*
1
1
Free
Belarus
7
6
Not Free
Belgium*
1
1
Free
Belize*
1
2
Free
Benin*
2
2
Free
Bhutan
4
5
Partly Free
Bolivia*
3
3
Partly Free
Bosnia-Herzegovina*
4
3
Partly Free
2
Free
Botswana*
3?
Brazil*
2
2
Free
Brunei
6
5
Not Free
Bulgaria*
2
2
Free
Burkina Faso
5
3
Partly Free
Burma
7
7
Not Free
India Review 2017
Page 110 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Burundi*
4
5
Partly Free
⇑
Cambodia
6
5
Not Free
⇓
Cameroon
6
6
Not Free
Canada*
1
1
Free
Cape Verde*
1
1
Free
Central African Republic
5
5
Partly Free
Chad
7
6
Not Free
Chile*
1
1
Free
China
7
6
Not Free
Colombia*
3
4
Partly Free
Comoros*
3
4
Partly Free
Congo (Brazzaville )
6
5
Not Free
⇓
Congo (Kinshasa)
6
6
Not Free
⇓
Costa Rica*
1
1
Free
Cote d’Ivoire
6
5
Not Free
2
Free
Croatia*
1?
Cuba
7
6
Not Free
Cyprus*
1
1
Free
India Review 2017
Page 111 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Czech Republic*
1
1
Free
Denmark*
1
1
Free
Djibouti
5
5
Partly Free
Dominica*
1
1
Free
Dominican Republic*
2
2
Free
East Timor*
3
4
Partly Free
Ecuador*
3
3
Partly Free
Egypt
6
5
Not Free
El Salvador*
2
3
Free
Equatorial Guinea
7
7
Not Free
Eritrea
7
7?
Not Free
Estonia*
1
1
Free
Ethiopia
5
5
Partly Free
Fiji
6
4
Partly Free
Finland*
1
1
Free
France*
1
1
Free
Gabon
6
5?
The Gambia
5
5?
India Review 2017
⇓
⇓
Not Free ?
Partly Free
Page 112 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Georgia
4
4
Partly Free
Germany*
1
1
Free
Ghana*
1
2
Free
Greece*
1
2
Free
Grenada*
1
2
Free
4?
4
Partly Free
Guinea
7
6?
Guinea-Bissau*
4
4
Partly Free
Guyana*
2
3
Free
Haiti*
4
5
Partly Free
Honduras
4?
4?
Partly Free
Hungary*
1
1
Free
Iceland*
1
1
Free
India*
2
3
Free
Indonesia*
2
3
Free
Iran
6
6
Not Free
Iraq
5?
6
Not Free
1
1
Free
Guatemala*
Ireland*
India Review 2017
Not Free
⇓
Page 113 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Israel*
1
2
Free
Italy*
1
2
Free
Jamaica*
2
3
Free
Japan*
1
2
Free
Jordan
6?
5
Not Free ?
Kazakhstan
6
5
Not Free
Kenya
4
4?
Kiribati*
1
1
Kosovo
5?
4?
Partly Free ?
Kuwait
4
4
Partly Free
6?
5?
Not Free ?
Laos
7
6
Not Free
Latvia*
2
1
Free
Lebanon
5
3?
Partly Free
Lesotho*
3?
3
Partly Free ?
Liberia*
3
4
Partly Free
Libya
7
7
Not Free
Liechtenstein*
1
1
Free
Kyrgyzstan
India Review 2017
⇓
Partly Free
Free
Page 114 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Lithuania*
1
1
Free
Luxembourg*
1
1
Free
Macedonia*
3
3
Partly Free
Madagascar
6?
4?
Partly Free
Malawi*
3?
4
Partly Free
Malaysia
4
4
Partly Free
Maldives*
3?
4
Partly Free
Mali*
2
3
Free
Malta*
1
1
Free
Marshall Islands*
1
1
Free
Mauritania
6
5
Not Free
Mauritius*
1
2
Free
Mexico*
2
3
Free
Micronesia*
1
1
Free
Moldova*
3?
4
Partly Free
Monaco*
2
1
Free
Mongolia*
2
2
Free
Montenegro*
3
2?
Free ?
India Review 2017
⇑
⇓
⇑
Page 115 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Morocco
Pending
⇓
5
4
Partly Free
4?
3
Partly Free
Namibia*
2
2
Free
Nauru*
1
1
Free
Nepal
4
4
Partly Free
Netherlands*
1
1
Free
New Zealand*
1
1
Free
Nicaragua*
4
4?
Partly Free
5?
4
Partly Free
Nigeria
5
4
Partly Free
⇓
North Korea
7
7
Not Free
⇓
Norway*
1
1
Free
Oman
6
5
Not Free
Pakistan
4
5
Partly Free
Palau*
1
1
Free
Panama*
1
2
Free
Papua New Guinea*
4
3
Partly Free
Paraguay*
3
3
Partly Free
Mozambique
Niger
India Review 2017
Page 116 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Peru*
2
3
Free
Philippines
4
3
Partly Free
Poland*
1
1
Free
Portugal*
1
1
Free
Qatar
6
5
Not Free
Romania*
2
2
Free
Russia
6
5
Not Free
Rwanda
6
5
Not Free
Saint Kitts and Nevis*
1
1
Free
Saint Lucia*
1
1
Free
Saint Vincent and
Grenadines*
2
1
Free
Samoa*
2
2
Free
San Marino*
1
1
Free
Sao Tome and Principe*
2
2
Free
Saudi Arabia
7
6
Not Free
Senegal*
3
3
Partly Free
Serbia*
2?
2
Free
3
3
Partly Free
Seychelles*
India Review 2017
⇓
⇓
Page 117 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Sierra Leone*
3
3
Partly Free
Singapore
5
4
Partly Free
Slovakia*
1
1
Free
Slovenia*
1
1
Free
Solomon Islands
4
3
Partly Free
Somalia
7
7
Not Free
South Africa*
2
2
Free
South Korea*
1
2
Free
Spain*
1
1
Free
Sri Lanka*
4
4
Partly Free
Sudan
7
7
Not Free
Suriname*
2
2
Free
Swaziland
7
5
Not Free
Sweden*
1
1
Free
Switzerland*
1
1
Free
Syria
7
6
Not Free
Taiwan*
1?
2?
Tajikistan
6
5
India Review 2017
⇓
⇓
Free
Not Free
Page 118 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Tanzania
4
3
Partly Free
Thailand
5
4
Partly Free
Togo
5
4?
Partly Free
Tonga
5
3
Partly Free
Trinidad and Tobago*
2
2
Free
Tunisia
7
5
Not Free
Turkey*
3
3
Partly Free
Turkmenistan
7
7
Not Free
Tuvalu*
1
1
Free
Uganda
5
4
Partly Free
Ukraine*
3
2
Free
United Arab Emirates
6
5
Not Free
United Kingdom*
1
1
Free
United States*
1
1
Free
Uruguay*
1
1
Free
Uzbekistan
7
7
Not Free
Vanuatu*
2
2
Free
Venezuela
5?
4
Partly Free
India Review 2017
⇓
Page 119 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Vietnam
7
5
Not Free
Yemen
6?
5
Not Free ?
3
4?
6?
6
Zambia*
Zimbabwe
⇓
Partly Free
Not Free
Methodology:
PR and CL stand for political rights and civil liberties, respectively; 1 represents the most free and
7 the least free rating. The ratings reflect an overall judgment based on survey results.
? ? up or down indicates a change in political rights, civil liberties, or status since the last survey.
⇑ ⇓ up or down indicates a trend of positive or negative changes that took place but that were
not sufficient to result in a change in political rights or civil liberties ratings of 1-7.
* indicates a country’s status as an electoral democracy.
Source:
This data is derived from the latest edition of Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2010
edition.
Available at URL: http://www.freedomhouse.org
Updated:
Reviewed in 2015
Human Rights
Overview of Human Rights in India
The Republic of India is a multiparty, federal, parliamentary democracy. India has a mixed human
India Review 2017
Page 120 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
rights record. While there have been improvement in some areas, there have also been reports of
abuses.
Societal and governmental discrimination based on caste, social, and/or religious grounds continues
despite new laws that are supposed to protect against it. Dalits, or those who perform the most
menial and degrading of jobs in the nation, continue to face violence and discrimination. They are
faced with harassment, police brutality, mutilations and killings if they attempt to cross caste
barriers. The Adivasis, an indigenous people in India, are often misplaced due to the Land
Acquisition Act of 1894. which the government still using to claim lands for development.
Members of the security forces continue to enjoy impunity for human rights violations. Laws, such
as the National Security Act, the Disturbed Areas Act, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the
Public Safety Act, and the Criminal Code of Procedure, allow security agents to be shielded from
any legal accountability for many abuses committed. Torture, rape, beatings, and custodial killings
fall under this umbrella of safety.
India has the highest population of working children in the world. Many of these work in the worst
forms of child labor. While these children should be protected by child labor laws, due to reasons
such as corruption, apathy or caste bias, the government chooses to ignore the plight of the
children.
A recent estimate indicates that 5.1 million people live with HIV/AIDS in India. Many experts
suggest this number is low and the actual nunber could be as high as ten million. Those living with
this disease face stigmatization and discrimination. They are also denied employment and access to
education and healthcare.
While India is home to a generally free press, the government occasionally limits this freedom. As
well, freedom of movement is occasionally hindered.
Authorities sometimes harass human rights activists.
Since 2003, there has been a tentative cease-fire along the Line of Control in Kashmir. However,
terrorism-related violence inside of Indian-controlled Kashmir continues. Bomb and grenade
attacks on civilians and on moderate Kashmir leaders hinder the peace process. Since the
insurgency began in 1989, thousands of people have disappeared and most are presumed dead.
Thousands of Burmese seek refugee in India each year in order to escape the Burmese military
government. However, many are turned back or if allowed to stay, are not granted proper
protections under the law.
Terrorism by Islamic militants and Maoists in various regions of India has been a serious problem
in recent years, with civilians being the victims in most cases.
India Review 2017
Page 121 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Human Development Index (HDI) Rank:
See Social Overview of Country Review for full listing of rankings for all countries.
Human Poverty Index Rank:
58th out of 103
Gini Index:
32.5
Life Expectancy at Birth (years):
69.25 years
Unemployment Rate:
8.9%
Population living on $1 a day (%):
34.7%
Population living on $2 a day (%):
79.9%
Population living beneath the Poverty Line (%):
36.3%
Internally Displaced People:
1,100,000
Note-Some 160,000 refugees from China/Tibet, Sri Lanka, and Afghanistan are currently seeking
asylum in India
Total Crime Rate (%):
30.7%
India Review 2017
Page 122 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Health Expenditure (% of GDP):
Public: 1.3%
% of GDP Spent on Education:
4.1%
Human Rights Conventions Party to:
• International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide
• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
• Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(Signed but not yet ratified)
• Conventions on the Rights of the Child
*Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite index that measures the level of well-being in
177 nations in the world. It uses factors such as poverty, literacy, life-expectancy, education, gross
domestic product, and purchasing power parity to assess the average achievements in each nation.
It has been used in the United Nation’s Human Development Report since 1993.
*Human Poverty Index Ranking is based on certain indicators used to calculate the Human
Poverty Index. Probability at birth of not surviving to age 40, adult literacy rate, population without
sustainable access to an improved water source, and population below income poverty line are the
indicators assessed in this measure.
*The Gini Index measures inequality based on the distribution of family income or consumption. A
value of 0 represents perfect equality (income being distributed equally), and a value of 100 perfect
inequality (income all going to one individual).
*The calculation of the total crime rate is the % of the total population which has been effected by
property crime, robbery, sexual assault, assault, or bribery (corruption) related occurrences.
India Review 2017
Page 123 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Government Functions
Constitution
According to its constitution of 1950, India is a "sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic."
Similar to the United States, India has a federal form of government. The central government in
India, however, has greater power in relation to its states, and its central government is patterned
after the British parliamentary system.
Executive Power
The government exercises its broad administrative powers in the name of the president, whose
duties are largely ceremonial. A special electoral college elects the president and vice president
indirectly for five-year terms. Their terms are staggered, and the vice president takes over the
duties of the president following the death or removal from office of the incumbent.
Real national executive power is centered in the Council of Ministers (cabinet), led by the prime
minister. The president appoints the prime minister, who is designated by legislators of the political
party or coalition commanding a parliamentary majority. The president then appoints subordinate
ministers on the advice of the prime minister.
Legislative Power
India's bicameral parliament consists of the Rajya Sabha (Council or House of the States) and the
Lok Sabha (House of the People or People's Assembly). The Council of Ministers (including the
prime minister) is responsible to the Lok Sabha and must retain the support of a majority of the
members of the Lok Sabha to remain in office.
The legislatures of the states and union territories elect members to the Rajya Sabha. There should
be no more than 250 in total. Up to 12 of members of the total are appointed by the president, the
remainder are chosen by the elected members of the state and territorial assemblies; members
serve six-year terms). The elected members of the Rajya Sabha serve six-year terms, with onethird up for election every two years. The Lok Sabha consists of 545 members; 543 are directly
elected to five-year terms. The remaining two are appointed to represent the Anglo-Indian
community.
India Review 2017
Page 124 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Judicial Power
India's independent judicial system began under the British, and its concepts and procedures
resemble those of Anglo-Saxon countries. The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and 25
other judges, all appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister.
Administration and State Government
India has 29 states and 7 union territories.
The president appoints a governor of each state who may assume certain broad powers during
state government crises. The central government exerts greater control over the union territories
than over the states, although some territories have gained substantial autonomy.
Centralization and Decentralization in Government
The powers of the state and central government have been clearly delineated by the constitution.
There is a list where the two governments share powers. Over the last 50 years, India has seen
increasing decentralization, with more and more power passing from New Delhi to the states. India
has also seen reorganization of its states several times since independence, leading to smaller, more
manageable states. The first such reorganization took place in the late 1950s which saw creation of
states on the linguistic basis. This was followed by similar moves in the 1960s and 1970s. Another
move came in September 2000 when the Parliament approved the creation of three new states.
Local Authority
Even beyond the states, the Indian democracy can be seen at work at the village level, through
Panchayati Raj (rule of the Panchayat or village councils). Though Panchayats have existed in
India since times immemorial, they were officially recognized soon after independence and their
powers were dramatically increased in 1985 through a special act that saw a far greater devolution
of power right to the villages, especially linked to social, health, educational and developmental
issues. Several states have since held elections under the new Act, thus transferring real power to
the village level. In fact, so successful has been the Indian experiment in local governance that even
leading western groups like the European Union have sought to learn from the Indian experience in
decentralizing their own governance.
India Review 2017
Page 125 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Government Structure
Names:
conventional long form:
Republic of India
Conventional short form:
India
local long form:
Republic of India/Bharatiya Ganarajya
local short form:
India/Bharat
Type:
Federal republic; democratic process; mixed presidential-parliamentary system
Executive Branch:
Chief of State:
Pres. Pranab Mukherjee (as of 2012). The president is elected for a five-year term by an
electoral college consisting of elected members from both houses of the "Sansad" (Parliament) and
the legislatures of the states. See "Election Primer" below.
Primer on 2012 Presidential Election in India:
July 19, 2012 -An (indirect) presidential election was scheduled to be held in India on July 19, 2012. In India, the
president is the titular head of state (distinct from the prime minister who is the head of
government), and is elected for a five-year term by an electoral college consisting of elected
members from both houses of the "Sansad" (Parliament) and the legislatures of the states.
In 2012, the major contenders for the presidency were Pranab Mukherjee, of the ruling United
Progressive Alliance party, and P.A. Sangma, a former speaker of the Indian parliament and the
candidate of the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance.
All expectations were that Mukherjee would secure the presidency, given the ruling party's
dominance in parliament, whose votes are crucial to the outcome of the election. Indeed, with the
India Review 2017
Page 126 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
votes counted it was Mukherjee who emerged victorious. According to the independent Election
Commission Mukherjee secured an overwhelming victory having won more than 558,000 votes
against 240,000 votes by Sangma. Accordingly, Mukherjee was set to be sworn into office as
India's new president on July 25, 2012.
Head of Government:
Prime Minister Narendra Modi (since 2014). The prime minister is formally appointed by the
president and was elected by the members of the majority party in parliament following previous
legislative elections. See "Primer" below for background information related to 2014
parliamentary elections.
Note on head of goverment:
Narendra Modi of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) claimed victory following
the 2014 elections and became India's new prime minister succeeding Manoman Singh of the
Congress Party.
Note on parliamentary elections:
In May 2014, India completed its general elections. See "Legislative Branch" below for details
about the election results. Also see below for details related to the 2014 elections.
Cabinet:
Council of Ministers; appointed by the president, based on the recommendation of the prime
minister
Note on cabinet:
The government (Prime Minister and Council of Ministers) is responsible to the Lok Sabha (House
of the People or People's Assembly) and must maintain the support of a majority of its members to
remain in office.
Legislative Branch:
Bicameral "Sansad" (Parliament):
Consists of the "Rajya Sabha" (Council or House of the States) and the "Lok Sabha" (House of the
People or People's Assembly)
"Rajya Sabha" (Council or House of the States):
At present, 245 members; 233 elected by the members of the state and territorial assemblies, 12
appointed by the president; elected members serve six-year terms; one-third of elected members
stand for (re-)election every two years. The "Rajya Sabha" may not exceed 250 members.
"Lok Sabha" (House of the People or People's Assembly):
India Review 2017
Page 127 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
545 members; 543 elected by popular vote to serve five-year terms, two appointed by the Indian
president to represent the Anglo-Indian community
Primer on 2014 Elections of "Lok Sabha" or People's Assembly:
April 7 to May 12, 2014 -Parliamentary elections were expected to be held in India on a phased basis from April 7, 2014, to
May 12, 2014. At stake would be control over the parliament. In India, the legislative branch of
government is the bicameral "Sansad" (Parliament), which consists of the "Rajya Sabha" (Council
or House of the States) and the "Lok Sabha" (House of the People or People's Assembly). In
regards to control over the government, the action would be in the "Lok Sabha" (House of the
People or People's Assembly), composed of 545 members; members are elected by popular vote
to serve five-year terms.
Typically, the leader of the largest party or bloc in parliament leads the government as the prime
minister; he/she is expected to maintain support of the majority in this lower house of parliament.
Note that in the previous elections of 2009, outgoing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Congress
party won the most seats in the lower house over the opposing nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP). Pre-polling data for 2014 indicated a reveral of fortune for both parties was in the offing.
See "Background" below for details.
Background on 2014 elections -In January 2014, India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced his retirement, saying he did
not intend to continue on as head of government, even if his Congress Party won the next
elections, which were expected to be held by mid-2014. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who
has served as head of government for more than a decade and who has generally been viewed as
an effective steward of India's economy, made note of his administration's success, saying, "An
array of historical legislations has been enacted to make the work of the government transparent
and accountable." He also defended his political legacy, pointing to his government's efforts on
behalf of the poor and on behalf of farmers, while also emphasizing that his government had
"transformed the education landscape of the country."
Looking to the future, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared: "In a few months time, after the
general election, I will hand the baton over to a new prime minister." Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh expressed confidence that his Congress Party would again secure victory (having won the
previous 2004 and 2009 elections), and so that new prime minister would be from his party. Still,
the prime minister made it clear that his time at the helm was over, saying, "I have ruled myself out
as a prime ministerial candidate." The prime minister also made note of the fact that there was a
India Review 2017
Page 128 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
crop of youthful party leaders that should have a chance in the limelight, noting that Rahul Gandhi
-- son of Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Congress Party -- possessed the kind of credentials
worthy of being nominated as the party's candidate. Speaking of the need to turn power over to the
younger generation, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said: "I am confident that the new generation
of our leaders will also guide this great nation successfully through the uncharted and uncertain
waters of global change."
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had harsh words for the opposition nationalist Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP), which saw success in local elections in key states in recent time. The outgoing prime
minister emphasized the importance of defeating the BJP in the national elections and vociferously
asserted that it would be "disastrous for the country" if opposition leader, Narendra Modi, were
elected as prime minister. Referring to the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in 2002 that left more than
1,000 people dead in the western state of Gujarat where Modi was chief minister, Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh disparaged the notion of the prime minister’s office being held by Modi. He
declared, "Someone who presided over the massacre of innocent people should not be the prime
minister."
By the middle of January 2014, after a meeting of senior party officials, Rahul Gandhi -- whom
outgoing Prime Minister Singh had referenced as a worthy example of the party's crop of young
leaders -- was named as the individual to lead the Congress party into the next elections. Of
course it should be noted there was no confirmation that Rahul Gandhi would actually be the
party's candidate for prime minister. As noted by the president of the Congress Party, Sonia
Gandhi, it was not traditional practice to announce a prime ministerial candidate ahead of the
elections.
Rahul Gandhi was certainly a natural successor to the helm of leadership of the historic Congress
Party. Indeed, the Gandhi family has long been viewed as India's premier political dynasty and
certainly as the "caretakers" of sorts of India's Congress Party. Rahul Gandhi was the greatgrandson of Jawaharlal Nehru -- India's first prime minister after independence from the United
Kingdom and an icon of Indian politics for much of the 20th century. Rahul Gandhi was also the
grandson of Indira Gandhi (no relation to Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi) -- a trail blazer as India's
first female head of government. Rahul Gandhi’s father was Rajiv Gandhi who also served as
prime minister of India. After the assassination of his mother, Indira Gandhi at the hands of Sikh
extremists, Rajiv Gandhi became head of government; but he also suffered a tragic fate having
himself been assassinated -- this time by Tamil extremists. Rajiv Gandhi's widow -- an Italian
national, Sonia Gandhi -- subsequently became the head of the Congress Party. Rahul Gandhi -the son of assassinated Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi -entered the political arena himself and became the Congress Party's vice president. As discussed
here, in January 2014, he was announced as the person who would lead the Congress Party in the
next elections.
India Review 2017
Page 129 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
It should be noted that the Congress Party itself was suffering from lagging approval, due to a
combination of economic sluggishness, inflation, and corruption allegations. In fact, polls showed
the rival nationalist BJP (mentioned above) with the advantage at the start of 2014. The newlyformed anti-corruption Aam Admi Party was also attracting a following that could detract from the
Congress Party's goal of holding onto power by splitting the anti-BJP vote share. Election victory
for the BJP over the Congress Party would likely propel the controversial party leader, Modi, into
the position of head of government. Such a development could well spark sectarian dissonance in
India, given Modi's role in the anti-Muslim riots of 2002.
With the Congress Party likely anticipating defeat at the forthcoming polls, and with an eye on
protecting the long-term image of the young Gandhi whose career in the public sphere was only
just beginning, the incumbent ruling party made the political calculation not to set up the
forthcoming contest as a battle between Modi and Gandhi.
The Election
With the Indian election set to commence on April 7, 2014, it was apparent that polling data was
coinciding with the general perception that the BJP was set to clinch victory and its Hindu
nationalist leader, Modi, was on track to become India's next prime minister.
As the 2014 elections began, polling data reported by the news channel, CNN-IBN, and Lokniti at
the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies said the BJP was likely to capture 38 percent of
the vote share, with the ruling Congress Party-led alliance would likely take 28 percent of the vote
share. This would translate into a clear majority in parliamentary seats for the BJP and its allies
over the Congress Party-led alliance of parties.
By mid-April 2014, with phased voting well underway, fresh polling by the NDTV news channel
showed the BJP headed for victory but with a narrow majority of parliamentary seats.
At the start of May 2014, before the phased voting process was complete, polling data continued to
suggest that Modi and the BJP were headed for victory, effectively displacing the Congress partyled government from power. That being said, there were signs that while Modi, the BJP, and its
allies would garner a plurality of the vote share, it might fall short of an outright majority.
Meanwhile, turnout was reported to be high and marked by the increased participation of younger
and first-time voters, as well as women.
By May 12, 2014, with the phased voting process complete, exit poll data indicated that Modi and
the BJP were on track for victory. Several different polling outfits were offering estimates of the
BJP victory, suggesting the party would carry anything from 250 to 285 (273 would be needed for
outright majority). The Congress Party was expected to carry only about 100 seats. Should this
exit poll data prove predictive, Modi was set to become India's new prime minister.
India Review 2017
Page 130 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
It should be noted that polling data in India is notorious for being inaccurate and, indeed, failed to
measure the Congress Party's margin of victory in 2009. Of course, no official election results
would be available until later in the month (May 2014). To that end, on May 16, 2014, the
Congress Party officially conceded defeat to the BJP. A triumphant Modi -- the son of a tea stall
owner -- would likely take the reins of power as India's new prime minister and would have
strong parliamentary support to set the political agenda in India. Indeed, the BJP was on course to
secure 282 seats in the 543 seat legislative body -- a clear and convincing victory and the first
majority government in India after 25 years of coalitions. It was a mandate from the voters that
India was ready for change.
Not one to claim victory graciously, Modi lashed out at the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty that has
dominated Indian politics since independence, declaring: "Four to five generations have been
wasted since 1952, this victory has been achieved after that." Modi continued by looking towards
his political agenda as he said, "I am confident about the future of India... I firmly believe that the
emergence of India as a major powerhouse of the evolving global economy is an idea whose time
has come."
Meanwhile, within the Congress Party, both Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi said they would step
down from their leadership posts in the aftermath of the party's crushing defeat at the polls.
However, insiders refused to accept their respective resignation offers and, instead, called on Sonia
Gandhi to reform the Congress Party. This move indicated that there was no desire by the party to
sever its historic bonds with the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. It was to be seen if Sonia Gandhi’s
daughter, Priyanka Gandhi, would play a more prominent role in to future Congress Party.
Judicial Branch:
Supreme Court; chief justice and 25 additional judges formally appointed by the president on the
advice of the prime minister; judges remain in office until the age of 65
Constitution:
Jan. 26, 1950; amended many times
Legal System:
Based on English common law; limited judicial review of legislative acts; accepts compulsory ICJ
jurisdiction, with reservations; separate personal law codes apply to Muslims, Christians, and
Hindus
India Review 2017
Page 131 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Administrative Divisions:
29 states and 7 union territories*; Andaman and Nicobar Islands*, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal
Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chandigarh*, Chhattisgarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli*, Daman and Diu*,
Delhi*, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka,
Kerala, Lakshadweep*, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland,
Odisha, Puducherry*, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh,
Uttarakhand, West Bengal
Note on administrative divisions:
Although its status is that of a union territory, the official name of Delhi is National Capital
Territory of Delhi
Political Parties:
Aam Aadmi Party or AAP [Arvind KEJRIWAL]
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam or AIADMK [J. JAYALALITHAA]
All India Trinamool Congress or AITC [Mamata BANERJEE]
Bahujan Samaj Party or BSP [MAYAWATI]
Bharatiya Janata Party or BJP [Amit SHAH]
Biju Janata Dal or BJD [Naveen PATNAIK]
Communist Party of India-Marxist or CPI(M) [Prakash KARAT]
Indian National Congress or INC [Sonia GANDHI]
Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) [Ram Vilas PASWAN]
Nationalist Congress Party or NCP [Sharad PAWAR]
Rashtriya Janata Dal or RJD [Lalu Prasad YADAV]
Samajwadi Party or SP [Mulayam Singh YADAV]
Shiromani Akali Dal or SAD [Parkash Singh BADAL]
Shiv Sena or SS [Uddhav THACKERAY]
Telegana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) [K. Chandrashekar RAO]
Telugu Desam Party or TDP [Chandrababu NAIDU]
YSR Congress(YSRC) [Jaganmohan REDDY]
Pressure Groups:
Numerous religious or militant/chauvinistic organizations, including Vishwa Hindu Parishad,
Bajrang Dal, and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh; various separatist groups seeking greater
communal and/or regional autonomy, including the All Parties Hurriyat Conference in the Kashmir
Valley and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland in the Northeast
Suffrage:
India Review 2017
Page 132 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
18 years of age; universal
Principal Government Officials
Leadership and Cabinet of India
Pres.
Pranab MUKHERJEE
Vice Pres.
Mohammad Hamid ANSARI
Prime Min.
Narendra MODI
National Security Adviser
Ajit Kumar DOVAL
Min. of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare
Radha Mohan SINGH
Min. of Chemicals & Fertilizers
Ananth KUMAR
Min. of Civil Aviation
Ashok Gajapathi Raju PUSAPATI
Min. of Communications & Information Technology
Ravi Shankar PRASAD
Min. of Consumer Affairs, Food, & Public Distribution
Ramvilas PASWAN
Min. of Corporate Affairs
Arun JAITLEY
Min. of Defense
Manohar PARRIKAR
Min. of Drinking Water & Sanitation
Chaudhary Birender SINGH
Min. of Earth Sciences
Harsh VARDHAN
Min. of External Affairs
Sushma SWARAJ
Min. of Finance
Arun JAITLEY
India Review 2017
Page 133 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Min. of Food Processing Industries
Harsimrat Kaur BEDAL
Min. of Health & Family Welfare
Jagat Prakash NADDA
Min. of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises
Anant GEETE
Min. of Home Affairs
Rajnath SINGH
Min. of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation
M. Venkaiah NAIDU
Min. of Human Resource Development
Smriti Zubin IRANI
Min. of Information & Broadcasting
Arun JAITLEY
Min. of Labor & Employment
Narendra Singh TOMAR
Min. of Law & Justice
Sadananda GOWDA
Min. of Micro-, Small, & Medium Enterprises
Kalraj MISHRA
Min. of Mines
Narendra Singh TOMAR
Min. of Minority Affairs
Najma HEPTULLA
Min. of Overseas Indian Affairs
Sushma SWARAJ
Min. of Panchayati Raj
Chaudhary Birender SINGH
Min. of Parliamentary Affairs
M. Venkaiah NAIDU
Min. of Personnel, Public Grievances, & Pensions
Narendra MODI
Min. of Railways
Suresh Prabhkar PRABHU
Min. of Road Transport & Highways
Nitin GADKARI
Min. of Rural Development
Chaudhary Birender SINGH
Min. of Science & Technology
Harsh VARDHAN
Min. of Shipping
India Review 2017
Page 134 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Nitin GADKARI
Min. of Social Justice & Empowerment
Thaawar Chand GEHLOT
Min. of Steel
Narendra Singh TOMAR
Min. of Tribal Affairs
Jual ORAM
Min. of Urban Development
M. Venkaiah NAIDU
Min. of Water Resources, River Development, & Ganga Rejuvenation
Uma BHARATI
Min. of Women & Child Development
Maneka GANDHI
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Aryuveda, Siddha, Unan, & Homeopathy
Shripad Yesso NAIK
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Coal
Piyush GOYAL
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Commerce & Industry
Nirmala SITHARAMAN
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Culture
Mahesh SHARMA
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Development of North-Eastern Region
Jitendra SINGH
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Environment, Forest, & Climate Change
Prakash JAVADEKAR
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Labor & Employment
Bandaru DATTATREYA
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for New & Renewable Energy
Piyush GOYAL
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Petroleum & Natural Gas
Dharmendra PRADHAN
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Planning
Inderjit Singh RAO
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Power
Piyush GOYAL
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Science & Technology
Jitendra SINGH
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Skill Development & Entrepreneurship
Rajiv Pratap RUDY
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Statistics & Program Implementation
V. K. SINGH
India Review 2017
Page 135 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Textiles
Santosh Kumar GANGWAR
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Tourism
Mahesh SHARMA
Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Youth Affairs & Sports
Sarbananda SONOWAL
Head, Dept. of Atomic Energy
Narendra MODI
Head, Dept. of Space
Narendra MODI
Governor, Reserve Bank of India
Raghuram RAJAN
Ambassador to the US
Arun Kumar SINGH
Permanent Representative to the UN, New York
Syed AKBARUDDIN
-- as of 2016
Leader Biography
Leader Biography
Note on Presidency: Pranab Mukherjee
An (indirect) presidential election was scheduled to be held in India on July 19, 2012. In India, the
president is the titular head of state (distinct from the prime minister who is the head of
government), and is elected for a five-year term by an electoral college consisting of elected
members from both houses of the "Sansad" (Parliament) and the legislatures of the states.
In 2012, the major contenders for the presidency were Pranab Mukherjee, of the ruling United
India Review 2017
Page 136 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Progressive Alliance party, and P.A. Sangma, a former speaker of the Indian parliament and the
candidate of the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance.
All expectations were that Mukherjee would secure the presidency, given the ruling party's
dominance in parliament, whose votes are crucial to the outcome of the election. Indeed, with the
votes counted it was Mukherjee who emerged victorious. According to the independent Election
Commission Mukherjee secured an overwhelming victory having won more than 558,000 votes
against 240,000 votes by Sangma. Accordingly, Mukherjee was set to be sworn into office as
India's new president on July 25, 2012.
Note: Pranab Mukherjee, of the ruling United Progressive Alliance party, holds two master's
degrees as well as a law degree. A native of the eastern state of West Bengal, he has served in a
number of capacities in India's ruling Congress party and held a number of key ministerial
portfolios, including defense and foreign affairs.
Foreign Relations
General Relations
India's size, population and strategic location give it a prominent voice in international affairs, and
its growing industrial base, military strength, and scientific and technical capacity give it added
weight. It collaborates closely with other developing countries on issues from trade to
environmental protection.
India has always been an active member of the United Nations (U.N.) and has been seeking a
permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council in addition to other U.N. reforms. India has a long
tradition of participating in U.N. peacekeeping operations and most recently contributed personnel
to U.N. operations in Sierra Leone, Somalia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Kuwait, Bosnia, Angola
and El Salvador.
The end of the Cold War dramatically affected Indian foreign policy. India remains a leader of the
developing world and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), and hosted the NAM Heads of State
India Review 2017
Page 137 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Summit in 1997. India has also been seeking to strengthen its political and commercial ties with the
United States, Japan, the European Union, Iran, China, and the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations.
Regional Relations
India is an active member of the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and
the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IORARC).
Relations with SAARC
Certain aspects of India's relations within the subcontinent are conducted through the South Asia
Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Its members are Bangladesh, Bhutan, India,
Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Established in 1985, SAARC encourages cooperation in
agriculture, rural development, science and technology, culture, health, population control, counternarcotics and counter-terrorism.
SAARC has intentionally stressed these "core issues" and has not served as a forum for more
divisive political issues, although political dialogue is often conducted at the margins of SAARC
meetings. In 1993, India and its SAARC partners signed an agreement to lower tariffs within the
region over time. With the implementation of the South Asian Preferential Trade Agreement
(SAPTA), SAARC now hopes to finalize the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) by
2005.
Border Relations
In order to deal with dissident and separatists from Assam, India has worked with Burmese and
Bhutanese forces to secure this area. Efforts toward this end were ongoing as of 2005.
Relations with Pakistan
The violence that accompanied the partition of India at the time of independence in 1947 continues
to govern the bilateral relations between the two neighbors. Ever since the partition, India and
Pakistan have had testy relations and the two countries have fought several wars in the last five
decades.Indeed, many of the issues dividing the two nations are the legacy of the British colonial
rule and the hasty partition.
One of these issues is the dispute over the status of Jammu and Kashmir. During the negotiations
on partition of a united India into two nations conducted in early 1947, Pakistani leadership had
sought a far larger territory than it actually ended up with. It had set its sights on all Muslim
India Review 2017
Page 138 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
majority areas of India, including the large chunk in the east and a sizeable part of the state of
Hyderabad in southern India. Claims had also been mounted for smaller princely states that either
had a Muslim ruler or a sizeable Muslim population like Junagarh in Gujarat in western India.
The Indian leadership, of course, opposed such a partition and agreed to yield the territory in the
east. Hence when Pakistan was born on the midnight of Aug. 14-15, 1947, it had two principal
parts. The one in the west composed of the present day Pakistan, minus the disputed territory of
Jammu and Kashmir. The other part in the east is today's Bangladesh.
The status of Jammu and Kashmir was left undecided during these negotiations, with both parties
agreeing to let the decision be taken by the ruler of the state. Pakistani leadership was, of course,
certain that the ruler, though a Hindu, would seek to merge his territory with Pakistan. However,
by October 1947 -- over three months after the independence -- Pakistan lost patience and
launched an undeclared invasion of the state. First, several thousand armed tribesmen hailing from
Waziri and Mansud tribes from the adjoining North Western Frontier Province of Pakistan intruded
into Jammu and Kashmir, declared an armed revolt against the Maharaja and demanded that the
state join Pakistan.
Soon, the Pakistani army, too, entered Jammu and Kashmir. Within a matter of days, Pakistani
forces, both official and unofficial, had taken control of nearly a third of the territory of the state
and were barely a few kilometers from Srinagar, the capital of the state. Alarmed, the king turned
to India to seek assistance against the invasion and agreed to sign the accession treaty with India,
which further infuriated Pakistani leadership, which, refused to accept the accession, and said it
was against the will of the people of the state. However, soon after the accession, the Indian army
was dispatched rapidly into the state to counter the invasion. This was the first battle between the
two newly independent countries. The Indian forces were able to drive back the Pakistani forces,
before a cease-fire was declared, following resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and
pressure by other members of the international community.
India also lodged a complaint with the United Nations Security Council on Dec. 30, 1947, against
the Pakistani aggression and demanded a withdrawal of the invading forces and restoration of
status quo ante in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan, too, lodged a counter complaint against the
presence of Indian Army in the state and the accession, which, it said, did not represent the
popular demand in Jammu and Kashmir. It demanded a plebiscite in the state to determine the will
of the people. The Security Council passed two resolutions on the issue. Both the resolutions called
upon Pakistan to withdraw its forces and also the armed insurgents from the territory of Jammu
and Kashmir. It also called upon the two sides to restore peace and order in the state. Once these
two conditions had been met, India was to, in consultation and coordination with the United
Nations, hold a plebiscite in the state.
Despite repeated requests from the United Nations and India, Pakistan refused to withdraw its
India Review 2017
Page 139 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
forces and kept on demanding that India hold a plebiscite. Thus began the dispute that has
continued to cloud Pakistan's relationship with India for the last 53 years. The dispute has already
seen several wars between the two countries, including the war of 1947-48.
In the 1949 cease-fire agreement signed in Karachi, the two sides agreed to hold their positions.
This led to a partition of the state with Pakistan retaining the one-third northwestern part of the
state it had managed to capture before India entered the scene. India had to rest content with the
two-thirds southern and eastern part of the state. The two sides also agreed to a Line of Control,
which served as the de facto international border between Pakistan and India. Pakistan then very
arbitrarily divided the part of Kashmir under its control in two unequal parts. In December 1947,
of the roughly 84,000 sq km under Pakistani control, more than 67,000 sq km was separated from
Kashmir and constituted into Northern Territories, to be directly administered from Islamabad, and
annexed into Pakistan. The remaining 11,000 sq km was symbolically called Azad Kashmir (Free
Kashmir). Both the territories are controlled directly by Islamabad. Though Azad Kashmir has its
own President and a government and judiciary, all the power has been concentrated in its own
hands by the central government. All the responsible positions, too, have been allocated to nonKashmiris, mostly the powerful Punjabi community that dominates both the central government
and the armed forces of the country.
Pakistan's foreign policy on Kashmir remained driven by the desire to take over the remaining
portion of Kashmir, administered by India. Meanwhile, India was determined to keep the portion
that remained with it. Realizing that it could not match Indian military might on its own, Pakistan
developed a two-pronged strategy to counter India. It developed close relations with the United
States (U.S.) and China. In 1954, it joined two military alliances-the South East Asian treaty
Organization and the Central Treaty Organization-both led by the United States and aimed at
countering the Soviet influence in Asia. Joining these groupings enabled Pakistan to establish a
strong strategic relationship with the U.S., which also emerged as the biggest arms supplier to
Pakistan. For the U.S., Pakistan was slowly to emerge as the strongest ally in its rivalry with the
Soviet Union. Simultaneously, Pakistan also developed ties with China. In 1957, in an attempt to
appease the Chinese, Pakistan ceded over 5,000 sq km from its part of occupied Kashmir to the
Chinese. Soon after the Indo-Chinese war of 1962, Pakistan became aware of the Sino-Indian
rivalry for domination of the South Asian region and deftly played the Chinese card against India.
Armed by its two powerful allies and relying upon their support, Pakistan grew increasingly
aggressive in its dealings with India. Heightened tensions led to another war over Kashmir between
the two nations. Full-scale hostilities erupted in August 1965, when India alleged that insurgents
trained and supplied by Pakistan had entered in a large number inside Indian territory with an aim
to repeat the incidents of 1947-48. Pakistan had planned a "Kashmir Revolt Day" for Aug. 9,
1965, by organizing civil protests in the Indian part of Kashmir. It was also alleged to be sending
heavily armed troops into the state, using the civil unrest as an excuse. Though Pakistan denied the
accusations, the two countries embarked on a war that continued until Sept. 23, 1965.
India Review 2017
Page 140 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The Indian authorities complained to the U.S. about the use of American weapons by the Pakistani
forces. Pakistan was under an obligation under the Mutual Security Act with the U.S., not to use
American weapons in aggression against any other country. This led the U.S. government to
impose an arms embargo on both the sides and the State Department declared American neutrality
in the Indo-Pak conflict. The arms embargo seriously affected Pakistan, as it was highly dependent
on American supplies. Pakistan believed the U.S. should have extended help to them as per the
assurances given to them when Pakistan joined the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO)
and Central Treaty Organization (CENTO). The neutral stand taken by the U.S. also infuriated
Pakistan as it had expected the U.S. to use its influence to stop the Indian army's advance across
the international line into Pakistan and thus threatening Pakistan's independence.
Once again, Pakistan looked to China for help. In March 1965, Pakistan President Ayub Khan had
visited China and secured not only assurances of support to Pakistan in the event of a war with
India, but also substantial military supplies.
The interest shown by China in the subcontinent became a matter of concern to the American
policy makers. Therefore, the US lifted the arms embargo partially in 1967 and agreed to sell nonlethal weapons to both India and Pakistan.
During the 1965 war, the Soviet Union adopted a neutral stand and offered its good offices for a
peaceful settlement between the two warring states. The prime ministers of India and Pakistan met
at Tashkent on Jan. 3, 1966. The conference lasted from Jan. 4-10, 1966, during which time the
prime ministers agreed to create good relations in accordance with the U.N. Charter, to promote
understanding and friendly relations and a pullout of troops to their pre-war positions. Thus, India
returned a lot of territory that its army had seized during the war.
Then, as Pakistan suffered its own internal war between east and west, the flow of refugees into
India increased as Pakistan tightened its grip on East Pakistan. This led to mounting tensions
between India and Pakistan and the third Indo-Pakistan War began on December 3. This war was
very different from the previous two fought in 1947-48 and 1965. For the first time, Kashmir was
not the issue and the two superpowers -- the United States and the Soviet Union -- played an
active role in an Indo-Pak conflict.
In order to put pressure on India, the U.S. dispatched part of its seventh fleet, code-named "Task
Force 74" led by aircraft carrier Enterprise and half a dozen other ships into the Bay of Bengal
through the Straits of Malacca. An amphibious assault ship, Tripoli, with a battalion of 800
Marines, three guided missile escorts, four destroyers, a nuclear attack submarine, and an oil
tanker were sent to lend support to Pakistan. The Soviets, who had so far maintained neutrality in
Indo-Pak affairs, came out openly in support of India, partially due to the Indo-Soviet Peace and
Friendship Treaty signed in August 1971 and partially to counter the U.S. The Soviets, too,
dispatched a force of six vessels to the vicinity of the war zone. However, the two powers did not
directly use the forces in the conflict, which on the ground had been turning into a rout for
India Review 2017
Page 141 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Pakistan, at least in the East. On December 16, barely 13 days after the battle began, the Pakistani
forces in Dhaka surrendered unconditionally to the Indian forces. However, the situation was not
as dramatic on the western front, where India had made some gains, especially in Punjab and
Sindh provinces of Pakistan.
In March 1972, India sent a formal note to Pakistan desiring a summit between Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi and Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Five-day Indo-Pak Summit talks began on
June 28, 1972, at Simla in Himachal Pradesh. Both sides presented different priorities of items on
the agenda but later they agreed to a mutually acceptable draft for the agenda. Agreement was
reached on the recognition of the actual line of control of 1971 - where the forces were on the day
of the cease-fire-as the new international boundary between India and Pakistan.
The two countries again endorsed the principle of the settlement of bilateral disputes through
peaceful means. In 1974, Pakistan and India agreed to resume postal and telecommunications
links, and to enact measures to facilitate travel. Trade and diplomatic relations were restored in
1976, after a hiatus of five years.
The tensions in bilateral relations continued to spring up from time to time. In May 1974, India
conducted an underground nuclear test-in response to the strides made by the Chinese in deploying
nuclear arsenal in Tibet. However, the test was seen as a direct threat by Pakistan, which
accelerated its own secret nuclear program-being carried out with assistance from the Chinese.
In the 1980s, India repeatedly accused Pakistan of fomenting terrorism in its Punjab state, by
aiding the separatist movement in the state. India said Pakistan was trying to avenge its 1971
partition by trying to divide India by aiding the terrorists. Tensions mounted further in April 1984
after troops were deployed to the Siachen Glacier, a high-altitude desolate area close to the China
border left un-demarcated by the cease-fire agreement (Karachi Agreement) signed by Pakistan
and India in 1949.
The bilateral relations between India and Pakistan remained tense until mid 1980s. In 1986, things
began to improve, with a change of government in both the countries. In India, Rajiv Gandhi, the
youngest ever prime minister had taken over in late 1984, while across the border in Pakistan,
Benazir Bhutto won the elections that were held after the death of military dictator General Zia ul
Haq and the return of democracy after almost a decade of military rule.
In early 1986, the Indian and Pakistani governments began high-level talks to resolve the Siachen
Glacier border dispute and to improve trade. In an effort to curtail tensions, the two countries
formed a joint commission. In December 1988, Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and
Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi concluded a pact not to attack each other's nuclear facilities.
Agreements on cultural exchanges and civil aviation also were initiated.
India Review 2017
Page 142 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Peace did not last for long. By early 1990, armed militants began a campaign of terror in Jammu
and Kashmir, attacking civil and especially Hindu targets throughout the state. India blamed the
militancy on active support and training provided by Pakistan, while Pakistan denied any
involvement, saying it was only providing moral support to the "freedom fighters."
Over the last decade Pakistani support to Kashmiri militants became the main issue between the
two sides. India said that there were 110 training camps for the Kashmiri terrorists being run by the
Pakistani Army and the intelligence agency, the ISI, in the part of Kashmir that is under Pakistani
occupation, while another dozen such camps are located near the Pak-Afghan border. Many of the
militants have been armed with the weapons that were initially supplied by the U.S. for the Afghan
mujahidin. In fact, over the years, the composition of the militant groups, too, has changed
dramatically. In recent years, a large majority of militants killed or arrested by Indian security
forces in Kashmir are of non-Kashmiri origin, with mercenaries and Islamic fundamentalists from
as diverse a mix as Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, Central Asian countries and of course
Pakistan. Intelligence reports also point at the growing use of drug money by the ISI to fund the
militants.
In 1997, high-level Indo-Pakistani talks resumed after a three-year pause. The prime ministers of
India and Pakistan met twice and the foreign secretaries conducted three rounds of talks. In June
1997, the foreign secretaries identified eight "outstanding issues" around which continuing talks
would be focused. In September 1997, the talks broke down over the issues of Kashmir and peace
and security. Pakistan advocated that separate working groups examine the issues. India responded
that the two issues should be taken up along with six others on a simultaneous basis.
Tensions escalated dramatically following Pakistan's test of its Ghauri intermediate-range missile in
April 1998 and nuclear tests in both India and Pakistan in May 1998. All of Pakistan and India's
neighbors as well as the United States condemned these actions. Attempts were made to restart the
talks. India and Pakistan resumed their dialogue concerning Kashmir in mid-October 1998;
however, no progress toward a resolution of the conflict was made. Additional talks began in
February 1999 in Lahore.
Prior to the events of mid-1999 (described below), approximately 80,000 Indian and Pakistani
troops were deployed along the 700 kilometer (1,120 mile) Line of Control (LOC). Since the LOC
was established, the two states' troops have continued to exchange artillery fire across the line.
The conflict heated up in May 1999 when India again accused Pakistan of supporting an
insurgency in Indian-controlled Kashmir, just over the Line of Control in the area of Kargil. India
also alleged that Pakistani regular armed forces had joined the insurgents and captured key peaks in
the region that would control the access to a strategic highway linking Jammu and Kashmir capital,
Srinagar, to the eastern city of Leh. By capturing the peaks, the Pakistani troops could easily
prevent the use of the highway, which is of critical importance to the Indian troops as well as
India Review 2017
Page 143 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
civilian administration. Pakistan initially denied these accusations. India heavily reinforced its
troops in the area, and began pushing back the infiltrators, with the use of its air force as well.
Intense fighting continued until July 1999. Given both Pakistan and India's demonstrated nuclear
capacity, major and minor powers alike were gravely concerned. Ongoing diplomatic efforts,
including calls from the United States and the People's Republic of China for a dialogue between
India and Pakistan, initially proved unsuccessful. Following a July 4 meeting, however, U.S.
President Clinton and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif issued a joint statement calling for
the restoration of the Line of Control as delineated in the 1972 Simla Agreement and pledging to
take "concrete steps" to accomplish this goal. In particular, Prime Minister Sharif promised to try to
convince the Kashmiri militants to pull back from Indian-administered territory, effectively
admitting that at least some of the militants were receiving Pakistani support.
By July 11, Pakistan claimed that Kashmiri militant groups had responded favorably to the
government and military's requests to de-escalate. By that time, Indian and Pakistani military
leaders had also agreed on a disengagement plan.
Although some militants began pulling out shortly thereafter, India refused to call the agreement a
cease-fire, promising to keep up its efforts to oust the insurgents until all had been removed. To
complicate matters further, while some militant groups were receptive to Pakistan's requests for a
withdrawal, the United Jihad Council, the umbrella organization representing some 15 Kashmiri
militant groups, refused to pull out of Indian-administered territory. Thus, pockets of militants
remained behind, engaging the Indian troops. By July 26, however, India had ousted the last
remaining insurgents from its territory.
In mid-July, Pakistan finally admitted that some of its regular troops had, indeed, crossed the Line
of Control (LOC). While not acknowledging engagement with Indian troops on India's side of the
LOC, Pakistani military leaders stated that they had sent patrols across the line in an attempt to
preempt Indian attacks. These admissions were prompted by the fact that India had in its
possession dozens of bodies of Pakistani soldiers who had been killed in fighting on the Indian side.
Over the latter part of 2001, more details of the Kargil operation were exposed. It is now almost
certain that the entire operation had been planned and conducted by the Pakistani Army, with
General Pervez Musharraf (later, he would become Pakistan's leader) at the helm. The operation
had been planned last winter at the highest levels, though Prime Minister Sharif denied that he had
been consulted at all by the Army.
The 10-week long conflict resulted in over 1,000 casualties. India claimed total victory in the
operation since it had attained its stated objective of reclaiming the territory occupied by the
Pakistani forces and the militants. India also won international praise for the restraint it had
exercised by limiting the fighting to the Kargil sector, instead of opening other battlefronts against
Pakistan.
India Review 2017
Page 144 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Tensions were high, even at the end of the fighting. In the second week of August a plane carrying
16 people was shot down by India in the western state of Gujarat. India claimed the aircraft was an
espionage aircraft and clearly flying in its airspace without responding to the numerous messages
from the Indian air traffic controllers. However, Pakistan maintained the plane was on a training
flight and was within its airspace. Pakistan's threats of retaliation raised India's defenses to high
alert. Pakistan later filed a claim with the International Court of Justice seeking compensation for
the destruction of the aircraft and the loss of life, which India rejected. In June 2000, the Court
upheld the Indian position that the issue was beyond its purview.
The October military coup d'etat in Pakistan brought mixed reactions from India. Many were
afraid of an escalated conflict. It was widely believed that the military had taken over as a result of
the Pakistani government's concessions to India. The Indian government said that regardless of the
nature of the government, efforts to settle the conflict would continue. The new military
government of Pakistan expressed its willingness to work towards peace by withdrawing its troops
from the Indian border, however, these gestures were weakened in early November when fighting
resumed. Cross-border firing was halted in late November after an agreement between Pakistani
and Indian commanders.
The revelation of India's nuclear arms doctrine in August brought pleas from Pakistan for
international intervention. India said that it would use its nuclear weapons only in response to a
nuclear attack and that its development of nuclear weapons would continue until it reaches a level
of minimum deterrence. India also clearly explained that its nuclear program was not aimed at or
driven by Pakistan, but instead by the entire strategic perceptions, thus clearly bringing the Chinese
missile arsenal into play. India has maintained that its major strategic threat came from its neighbor,
China and not Pakistan.
At the end of 1999, yet another terrorist act, pointed to the involvement of Pakistan or Pakistanbased elements in fomenting terrorism in India. An Indian Airlines aircraft IC814, carrying over
120 passengers and crew and flying from Nepalese capital Kathmandu to New Delhi, was
hijacked. After several attempted landings at various airports in the region, the aircraft finally
touched ground at Kandahar airport in southern Afghanistan - which is also incidentally the base of
Taliban regime. The hijackers, who were later identified by the Indian authorities as being nationals
of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, demanded the release of over 40 prominent Kashmiri militants,
besides a ransom of over $25 million. After three weeks of negotiations, the Indian government
agreed to release three militants, including the chief of a Pakistan-based militant organization.
Within a week of his release, the three militants were roaming around major Pakistani cities openly,
surrounded by their armed supporters. They declared their intention to take their battle against
India to new heights. India again alleged Pakistani was involved in the hijack and said that the
entire operation had been masterminded by the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI. India said the
Pakistani embassy in Nepal had collaborated with the hijackers by providing them with false
India Review 2017
Page 145 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
identity papers and travel documents necessary to board the aircraft. Pakistan denied all the
charges and said it had nothing to do with the hijackers or the released militants, repeating its claim
that it provides only moral support to the Kashmiri militants.
Tensions remained high between the two countries throughout most of the year 2000. India
refused to hold talks with Pakistan as long as that country's support for terrorism in Kashmir
continued. In the year 2000, most countries and international groups including the U.S., the
European Union and G-8 supported India's point of view on kashmir, rejecting Pakistan's
contention of international mediation in resolving the Kashmir dispute.
The situation took a slight turn for the better in November 2000, when India announced a
unilateral cease-fire in its operations against the insurgents in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan reacted
by announcing it would pull back its troops from the frontier in order to further ease tensions in the
area. Musharraf also announced he was willing to meet Indian leaders 'anywhere and at any time'
to discuss the outstanding bilateral issues in order to improve relations. India, on the other hand,
maintained that it could not 'legitimize' the military government by holding discussions with
Musharraf and slso rejected all talks until Pakistan stopped aiding and abetting the militias in
Jammu and Kashmir. However, expectations that the initiatives taken by the two countries would
lead to the resumption of a dialogue remained unfulfilled. Both countries waited for the other to
make the first move. In May 2001, India initiated action when it suddenly announced an end to the
unilateral cease-fire and simultaneously invited Musharraf to visit New Delhi for discussions with
Prime Minister Vajpayee.
The decision to hold the summit meeting was welcomed by all. The international community was
watching with great interest the developments leading up to thee summit and the outcome itself.
The main source of contention between India and Pakistan during the summit focused on the
contentious problem of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan said that unless the two sides found a
solution to Jammu and Kashmir, the relations between them could not improve. India, on the other
hand, maintained that Jammu and Kashmir was a very difficult issue and that as no quick
resolution was in sight, the two countries should address other issues and work to improve bilateral
relations in the fields of trade, facilitating movement of people between the two countries and to
reduce tension on the border. India said that these improvements would go a long way in removing
tension between the two countries and lead to the building of confidence between them. Ultimately,
the two positions were far too divergent for the Agra summit to yield any significant results. The
two sides were also unable to agree on a joint declaration.
Though the situation continued as a stalemate between the two neighbors, relations took a plunge
in December when a group of terrorists launched a failed attack on the Indian Parliament in New
Delhi. On Dec. 13, 2001, a group of terrorists launched an attack on the Indian Parliament House
in New Delhi. In the ensuing gun-battle, 14 persons including all the terrorists were killed.
India Review 2017
Page 146 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The Indian government accused two Pakistan-based terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Tayiba and Jaish-eMohammad for the attack. In a sharp speech soon after the attack, India's Prime Minister Atal
Behari Vajpayee accused Pakistan for giving refuge to the two groups and threatened a strong
response if Pakistan did not cooperate by shutting down all terrorist bases on its soil. The speech
led to heightened tensions between the two countries and a threat of war once again loomed large
over the highly unstable Indo-Pak border. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf responded by
saying that there was no evidence the two groups had been involved in the attack and that Pakistan
would actively protect itself in case of any precipitate action by India.
Despite appeals of calm and restraint by all the major world powers, including the United States,
tension continued to mount between the two neighbors. Pakistan refused to accept Indian claims
that the two organizations had been involved in the attack on the Parliament. India's position has
been somewhat vindicated since the U.S. put the two organizations on its list of terrorist
organizations and urged all the countries to freeze their assets and clamp down on their activities.
Though Pakistan said it would act against the two organizations, India remains skeptical and
tensions continue to mount. Pakistan cancelled leave for troops and recalled all its military
personnel on leave as part of a state of high alert that was declared soon after the attack on Indian
Parliament. Pakistan also re-deployed its troops on the Line-of-Control in Jammu and Kashmir.
These troops had been unilaterally withdrawn in 2000 as a gesture aimed at normalization of
relations with India.
The situation was aggravated as both the countries began massing their troops along the
international border in a show of strength. The cross border firing, which is normally restricted to
the most contentious parts of the disputed Jammu and Kashmir state, soon spread and intensified,
leading to dozens of deaths on both sides. Meanwhile, hundreds of civilians living along the border
began to flee the area, partly due to the intense shelling of the border areas by the artillery on both
sides of the border.
As the impasse on the political front continued, India decided to recall its high commissioner
(ambassador) in Islamabad, saying that the bilateral relations had reached an all-time low following
Islamabad's refusal to initiate action against the terrorist groups. In another significant scaling down
of bilateral relations, India also decided to shut down train and bus services between the two
countries. The services had been initiated in 1999 following the visit of Indian Prime Minister Atal
Behari Vajpayee to Pakistan. India also called off the proposed meeting between Musharraf and
Vajpayee in January 2002, which was to be held in Nepalese capital of Kathmandu on the sidelines
of the summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation or SAARC, a body that
brings together the six South Asian nations. The Pakistan government criticized the Indian decision
to recall the high commissioner saying that diplomatic channels needed to be kept open especially
during times of crises. It said it would not take any retaliatory measure and keep its mission in New
Delhi at full level.
Tensions continued to escalate, though chances of an outright war between the two countries
India Review 2017
Page 147 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
seemed to be receding, especially due to the pressure being mounted by the U.S. and other global
powers on both India and Pakistan to handle the situation with care and resolve the differences
peacefully.
The year 2001 also saw a new element enter the Indo-Pakistani relationship - the Afghan situation.
Although New Delhi had a very close relationship with successive governments in Kabul, the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the muted Indian reaction to the invasion distanced India from
the Afghan resistance. Thus when the Soviet Army pulled out in 1989, India was nearly totally out
of the picture. The situation turned even worse when the Pakistan-sponsored Taliban won the
battle for Kabul and captured almost all of Afghanistan in 1996. In the early 1990s, India did try to
repair its mistakes of the past and began building a relationship with Ahmad Shah Masood, the
military commander of the Northern Alliance. Since then, India has been developing a close
relationship with the parties opposed to the Taliban, but as the Taliban held the sway almost
throughout the country, Indian influence was limited. Pakistan, on the other hand, held a very
special position in Afghanistan. Due to its close ties with the Taliban, whose forces were trained
and armed by Pakistan and whose army and secret services, the ISI, continued to assist the
Taliban in their battles against the Northern Alliance, Pakistan treated Afghanistan almost as a
satellite state, much in the way that the Soviet Union treated countries of East Europe. In fact, the
Afghan policy of Pakistan was even officially aimed at 'adding strategic depth' to Pakistan.
The Pakistani support for the Taliban, both overt and covert continued until almost the very end.
As one Taliban stronghold after another continued to fall to the Northern Alliance army, Pakistani
Air Force carried out several emergency sorties, extricating Pakistani army officials from various
tight corners.
Thus it was hardly surprising that Pakistan and the Northern Alliance treated each other with open
contempt and outright hostility. The turn of events was, however, advantageous for India as
several leaders of the Northern Alliance acknowledged India's support in the past and asked New
Delhi to step up its role in the international efforts aimed at finding a long-term solution to the
Afghan problem. New Delhi also attracted a string of visits by senior officials of the Northern
Alliance and ministers in the interim administration.
For India, the developments were welcome as India has stated on numerous occasions that the
terror activities in Jammu and Kashmir were often carried out by terrorists either based or trained
in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hence, Indian officials hope, a friendly government in power at Kabul
will definitely clamp down on the terrorists' hideouts and training camps on the Afghan territory.
Tensions between India and Pakistan increased again in the last week of February 2002, as
Pakistani ground troops almost shot down an air force AN-32 transport aircraft carrying Air
Marshal V K Bhatia, commander-in-chief of the Western Air Command, as he was inspecting the
Indian troops near Kargil in Kashmir. Then, in early May 2002, an attack on an army camp in
India Review 2017
Page 148 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Indian-administered Kashmir left 30 people dead and a further, marked increase in tension between
India and Pakistan. By May 2002, both sides exchanged heavy artillery, shelling, and machine-gun
fire across the Line of Control.
There were increased fears that a small spark could cause a major conflict to erupt. Indeed,
Pakistan also launched three short-range nuclear ballistic missile tests. Pakistan's President
Musharraf offered a speech, in conjunction with the missile tests. In response, India's officials
accused Pakistan of political posturing and military brinkmanship, however, they insisted that India
would not initiate a nuclear war. Indian officials have stated that India is committed to its policy of
no "first use" of nuclear weapons. For its part, India described Pakistan as the "epicenter of
international terrorism." In this regard, India again charged that Pakistan provides state support for
the training of Islamic militant groups (including support for terrorist training camps), which they
believe are responsible for a series of recent attacks on Indian targets. Pakistan denied these
charges, stating that it simply provides "moral support" to various groups seeking self-determination
for the people of the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir.
In early June 2002, as the situation between the two nuclear powers -- India and Pakistan -- heated
up, international efforts to quell the tension were concentrated on the regional security summit in
Kazakhstan. With Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari
Vajpayee both attending the same conference, it was hoped that possible face-to-face talks would
facilitate a breakthrough between the two countries. Russian authorities played a key role in trying
to achieve this end. Although no breakthrough was initiated, and India remained skeptical about
any resolution until cross-border terrorism is halted, India reportedly intercepted some
communication from militant Islamic groups suggesting that Pakistan had, indeed, ordered a halt in
infiltration at the Line of Control. This admission from India was regarded as a hopeful step in the
direction of rapprochement.
On June 10, 2002, India reiterated a previously-stated view that there was a quantifiable reduction
in levels of infiltration of Pakistani militants across the Line of Control into Kashmir. The
acknowledgement occurred almost simultaneously with reductions of the levels of cross-border
shelling and violence. In another measure toward de-escalation, India also announced that it was
lifting a flight ban on commercial Pakistani aircraft, which had been in effect since the attacks on
the Indian parliament six months before.
In early 2003, with an imbroglio brewing over the funding of Kashmiri separatist groups, senior
diplomatic corps from both India and Pakistan returned to their respective countries. The
contretemps occurred when the Indian police arrested two members of Hurriyat, a Kashmiri
separatist group, for financing militant terrorists. The police asserted that the finances had been
provided by the acting Pakistani High Commissioner, Jalil Abbas Jilani, and funneled from India's
capital city of Delhi to separatists in Indian-administered Kashmir. The revelation resulted in Jilani's
expulsion. For his part, Jilani claimed that the charges were simply measures aimed at intimidating
India Review 2017
Page 149 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Pakistan's diplomatic corps in India.
Soon thereafter, India's acting High Commissioner, Sudhir Vyas, left the Pakistani capital of
Islamabad, having been expelled for "actions unbecoming of their status." The phrase is diplomatic
terminology for charges of spying. The details of the spying charges are yet unknown, however,
most observers assume that the expulsions of Vyas, as well as four other Indian diplomats, were
levied in response to the expulsion of Jilani from India.
Later, an accusation by India's Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee about Pakistani support for terrorism
exacerbated deteriorating relations. Even though new diplomatic personnel for both countries were
approved to replace the expelled diplomatic staffers, the ever-brewing fight over Kashmir raised the
specter of nuclear conflict between these two nuclear neighbors on the Indian subcontinent.
Despite a spate of fresh violence in Indian-administered Kashmir by militant Islamists, as of the
spring of 2003, there appeared to be a thawing of relations between India and Pakistan.
First, the hardliner Indian Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, addressed the public in Kashmir's
summer capital of Srinagar and expressed the view that dialogue was necessary for building peace
in Kashmir. Pakistan's government expressed gratitude for the gesture of openness but maintained
the Pakistani position on Kashmir. Then, in a positive breakthrough, however, at the end of April
2003, Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee spoke with his Pakistani counterpart, Prime Minister Mir
Zafarulla Khan Jamali about measures aimed at improving bilateral relations. Soon thereafter, India
and Pakistan said that they would re-establish diplomatic relations.
Most recently, Pakistan shockingly stated that it would be prepared to denuclearise its arsenal if
India would do likewise. Because India is believed to possess nuclear weapons not only because of
on-going conflict with Pakistan but also as a deterrent against China, it is unlikely that mutual
abandonment of nuclear arsenals will take place. Nevertheless, the suggestion was regarded as a
diplomatic shift of sorts.
Also in 2003, United States Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, was due to visit
Islamabad and Delhi; discussions with the United States envoy and the governments of both
countries were to focus on possible bilateral dialogue and diffusing tensions. For its part, though,
India's Prime Minister Vajpayee insisted that there would be no role for a third party in resolving
the Kashmir dispute. Following on this theme, in June 2003, the Indian government rejected a call
by the Pakistani leadership for a "roadmap for peace" reminiscent of the one advocated by the
United States government in the Middle East. The Indian government in Delhi expressly said that it
would never accept outside mediation and that there was no place for a third party at the
negotiating table.
Since 2004, India and Pakistan have revisited the issue of composite dialogue and re-entered the
India Review 2017
Page 150 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
path toward rapprochement. (See "Political Conditions" for details.)
In late 2005, Pakistan accused India of meddling in its affairs following commentary by India's
Foreign Ministry about the rising violence in Pakistan's Balochistan state. The Pakistani Foreign
Ministry said, "Our advice to the Indian officials would be to mind their own business." The level
of anger by the Pakistani government was evidenced by the comments of its own Foreign Ministry
spokesperson, who suggested that it was shocking that India might not comprehend the magnitude
of its decision to issue a statement on a matter that involved Pakistan's internal interests. The
incident provoked anxiety regarding relations between the two nuclear powers, which have gone to
war with one another repeatedly and which remained at odds over the jurisdiction of Kashmir.
In April 2006, Pakistan announced that it had successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable missile with
a range of 1,250 miles or 2,000 kilometers. In its announcement, the Pakistani military said that it
was the second test-firing of the surface-to-surface Hatf VI missile, also known as the Shaheen II.
It was first test-fired about a year earlier in March of 2005. The government of Pakistan said that
it had informed other countries in the region of its plans in advance, and it noted that the missile
test would not impair bilateral relations with its main adversary, India.
The close of April 2006 was also marked by terrorist attacks by militant Islamists that left at least
35 Hindus dead in Indian-controlled Kashmir. The Chief Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir, Vijay
Bakaya, described the killings as a "massacre." No group immediately claimed responsibility for
the attacks, which broke a period of relative quiet in Kashmir. The most well-known militant
Islamic groups, operating in Kashmir from across the border in Pakistan, condemned these
particular killings and said that they were not involved. One spokesman for the militant group,
Hizbul Mujahideen, said that killing civilians would not further the "liberation movement." Instead,
he placed the blame on Indian intelligence agents. For its part, India placed the blame on
Pakistan. India's Foreign Minister Anand Sharma said, "It is cross border terrorism. It's not the first
time we are saying it."
There were fears that the incident might impinge on Indo-Pak relations, which in recent times,
has been on a more positive track due to bilateral overtures. Control of Kashmir, however, has
always been the heart of the conflict between the two nuclear nations which has resulted at times
in war, and which has left tens of thousands of people dead since 1989.
In July 2006, a massive terrorist attack in Mumbai, India evoked a quick condemnation from the
government of Pakistan, which had been slowly crafting more positive relations with its nuclear
neighbor. The attack came at the same time as an uptick in violence by militants in Kashmir.
In August 2006, Pakistan accused Deepak Kaul, an Indian official of the Indian High Commission
in Islamabad, of handling sensitive documents. Pakistan said that Kaul had been caught "redhanded" and was detained by Pakistani agents and then ordered to leave the country. For his part,
India Review 2017
Page 151 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Kaul denied any involvement in inappropriate activities. India also denied allegations of
wrongdoing and responded by expelling a Pakistani diplomat, Sayed Mohammed Rafq Ahmed.
Two months later in October 2006, India detained a Pakistani driver, employed by the High
Commission of Pakistan in Delhi, over the illegal transfer of classified documents. Indian security
officials said that the Pakistani national, Mohammed Farooq, had been caught receiving the
classified military documents. An Indian soldier was also arrested for passing the documents on to
the Pakistani driver. Pakistan decried the India's handling of the situation, accusing its neighbor of
violating international conventions. To this end, Pakistan released a statement that read as
follows: "Pakistan has lodged a strong protest with the Indian government over the illegal detention
and manhandling of Farooq, a driver of the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi by the Indian
security personnel... The harassment of the Pakistani driver is a violation of international
conventions as well as diplomatic norms."
The diplomatic imbroglio appeared to be a manifestation of rising tensions between the two nuclear
powers in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks earlier in the summer of 2006. Moreover,
these two incidences threatened to derail diplomatic progress between the two nuclear neighbors.
With India and Pakistan set to resume peace talks in November 2006, it was unknown how these
latest developments would affect the peace process.
Nevertheless, Indo-Pak relations remained on the agenda when Indian authorities said that they
believed Pakistan's intelligence agency was responsible for the aforementioned July 2006 terrorist
attacks in Mumbai. The Indian authorities also said that the terror attacks had actually been
carried out by the Pakistan-based Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba (mentioned above). To
this end, Indian Police Commissioner A.N. Roy said that 11 Pakistanis were involved in carrying
out the attacks, which involved the smuggling of explosives across the border. He also noted
that operatives from the Students' Islamic Movement of India had been implicated in the attacks as
well. Pakistan rejected the allegations, saying that India's claims were baseless and intended to
malign Pakistan.
On November 16, 2006, Pakistan successfully test-fired its Hatf V (also known as Ghauri) missile,
with a range of 1,300 kilometers. The Hatf V was said to be nuclear-capable. Pakistan said that
the missile test was for the purpose of "checking technical parameters." Three days after
Pakistan's missile test, India tested the medium-range Prithvi missile. The surface-to-surface
Privthvi missile was said to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads, with a range of 250
kilometers, and could travel 150 kilometers in 300 seconds. The missile test was part of a air
defense exercise and was to be followed by further tests. Ironically, the tests came only days after
the two nuclear rivals met for peace talks in the Indian capital city of New Delhi.
On November 26, 2008, suspected Islamic militants from Pakistan waged a series of simultaneous
India Review 2017
Page 152 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
terror attacks in the heart of India's commercial capital of Mumbai. At least 175 people died as a
result and hundreds more were wounded in the attacks that lasted days. According to Indian
authorities, at least ten terrorists -- all young men between the ages of 20 and 23 years -- took
control of a fishing trawler in the Arabian Sea. Although the origin of the young men was
unknown, Indian authorities surmised that they may have come from the Pakistani port of Karachi
since the GPS tracker on the vessel showed a return mapping for that city.
The simultaneity of multi-sited attacks was a hallmark of a global jihadist operation, such as alQaida. Likewise, the reports that the terrorists were seeking Westerner victims pointed to the likes
of al-Qaida or an al-Qaida inspired group with an international (vis a vis regional) agenda. As well,
Ayman al-Zawari -- Osama Bin Laden's deputy leader -- had released a statement only weeks
earlier. In the past, sudden media appearances by Bin Laden and/or those in his inner circle have
sometimes functioned as ominous harbingers of subsequent attacks orchestrated by al-Qaida.
That said, there were other suggestions that the attacks could well have been launched by a
Pakistani-based terror group, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the December
2001 storming of the Indian parliament. Another group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, was also mentioned
due to its own history of militant Islamist attacks on India. Both militant Islamic groups have
focused on the contested territory of Kashmir -- an ongoing source of conflict and even warfare
between the two nuclear-capable countries of Pakistan and India over the years. Some regional
analysts argued that recent conciliatory gestures by the Pakistani government toward the Congress
Party's government in India may have served as motivation for such militant Islamic terrorists who
favor a violent hard-line approach, rather than diplomacy, in securing jurisdiction over Kashmir. It
should be noted that despite their regional agenda of Kashmir, both Lashkar-e-Taiba as well as
Jaish-e-Mohammed have been increasingly regarded as aligned to some degree with al-Qaida, and
thus may have adopted some of that group's grander global jihadist aspirations.
Amidst such speculation, investigators indicated that while the terrorists may have had local
support, evidence indicated that they were not from India. The Indian government echoed this
view, noting that those responsible for the terror attacks must have come from outside India's
borders, but stopping short of a full-blown accusation of Pakistan’s complicity despite mounting
evidence of a Pakistani connection of some kind or another. For its part, the Pakistani
government condemned the attacks but also unequivocally denied any culpability in the attacks.
The Pakistani government was also reticent about admitting that the terrorists may have been of
Pakistani origins.
Nevertheless, Indian authorities moved one step closer to determining the actual identity of the
perpetrators of this terrorist assault on Mumbai after questioning one of the surviving terrorists who
had been captured by the police. Indian authorities said that 21-year old Mohammed Ajmal
Mohammed Amir Kasar was from Pakistan's Punjab province. The authorities said that Kasar
admitted that he belonged to the aforementioned Lashkar-e-Taiba and had been trained at one of
India Review 2017
Page 153 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
that terrorist group's camps in Pakistan. According to Kasar, the objective of the terrorism plot
was to "create an international incident." To this end, Kasar noted that "anything big in Mumbai
would be noticed all over the world." Kasar also reportedly said that his co-conspirators intended
to take hostages "for safe passage."
The revelation that the terrorists belonged to Lashkar-e-Taiba, as well as the contention by
counter-terrorism experts that the group was actually an extension of the Pakistani intelligence
service, were likely to collectively contribute to the ratcheting up of tensions on the Indian subcontinent.
As before, the Pakistani government was quick to distance itself from any evidence indicating
Pakistani involvement. Farhatullah Babar, a spokesman for Pakistani President Asif Zardari, said:
"We have demanded evidence of the complicity of any Pakistani group. No evidence has yet been
provided."
Some time later, however, Pakistan acknowledged that the only gunman who was captured alive
was, indeed, one of its citizens. Pakistan also admitted that the attackers arrived in India from
Karachi in Pakistan, on a boat that was hired in the Balochistan province of Pakistan. In this way,
Pakistan was finally acknowledging that some degree of conspiracy had originated in Pakistan.
Accordingly, Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik promised that suspects from the Lashkare-Taiba militant group would face prosecution.
In late June 2009, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh demanded that Pakistani President
Asif Ali Zardari deal with the Islamic extremist terrorists seeking to attack India. Prime Minister
Singh said that peace talks were off the proverbial table unless President Zardari acted against
Pakistan's largest terrorist organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the horrific
Mumbai (Bombay) terror attacks in November 2008. Under pressure from the United States,
Pakistan was already carrying out an offensive against al-Qaida and the Taliban. But despite the
public attention on those two groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba was in fact the most significant and active
extremist organization operating and orchestrating attacks from within Pakistani terrain.
India and Pakistan subsequently announced that they had agreed to meet for peace talks in Delhi
on February 25, 2010. This plan would constitute the first negotiations since Indian suspended
bilateral talks with Pakistan after the 2008 terror attacks, which were blamed on Pakistan-based
Lashkar-e-Taiba, as noted above.
On September 13, 2010, violence erupted in Indian-administered Kashmir. Protestors reportedly
gathered to protest the desecration of the Koran in the United States in defiance of curfews. The
demonstrations turned violent as a mob set government building and a Protestant school ablaze,
and then attacked a police station, while chanting anti-Indian and anti-American slogans. Police
opened fire on the protestors killing at least 18 civilians. As many as 100 others were wounded in
India Review 2017
Page 154 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
the chaos. The eruption of violence was not sudden as protests have been ongoing for several
months, originating in June 2010 when a 17-year-old student died after being hit by a tear gas shell
during protests in Srinagar. This latest manifestation of violence in Muslim-dominated Kashmir
appeared to have been sparked by the controversy in the United States about an American pastor's
plans to burn the Koran on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in that
country . As news filters through to Kashmiris that the American pastor did not actually go
through with his plans to desecrate the Koran, it was possible that the rising tide of anti-American
sentiment in Kashmir may subside. However, antipathy towards India, which has jurisdiction over
Muslim-dominated Kashmir, was not likely to decrease in the near future. Instead, the fight to
wrest control of Kashmir from India to Pakistan may well be revitalized among militants,
effectively refocusing the main flashpoint on the Indian subcontinent between Indians and
Pakistanis for more than five decades.
In October 2010, a report by The Guardian of the United Kingdom was published citing classified
documents from the Indian government indicating the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence
services in the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. Included in the report was information about the
interrogation of David Headley, a Pakistani-American militant who was arrested and detained in the
United States in 2009, in which he asserted that Pakistani intelligence services provided support for
the deadly bombings. Headley detailed meetings between Pakistani intelligence services personnel
and senior militants from Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) -- the terrorist group responsible for the Mumbai
attacks. Headley also noted that at least two of his missions to carry out surveillance of the targets
in Mumbai had been funded, at least in part, by Pakistani intelligence services.
Headley described the motivation behind Pakistani intelligence services' support for the attacks on
India as being rooted in a desire to shore up militant groups with closer ties to the Pakistani state,
who were being displaced by radical groups antagonistic to the state. In effect, while LeT may be
regarded by the international community as a deadly and dangerous terrorist enclave, the Pakistani
government finds LeT's regional interest in the control over Kashmir to be less of a threat to its
own lock on power than the likes of the Taliban and other al-Qaida linked terror groups, which
seek the overthrow of the Pakistani government. According to Headley, Pakistani intelligence
hoped that a spectacular terror attack by LeT would mitigate the "integration" between Kashmirfocused terror groups and "Taliban-based outfits," viewed as a threat to the Pakistani state.
January 2013 saw clashes erupt close to Kashmir's "Line of Control." The clashes resulted in the
deaths of two Indian soldiers as well as two Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan claimed that there had
been "unprovoked" gunfire emanating from Indian troops ahead of the death of one of their
soldiers. In response, the Indian army denied taking any provocative actions. India drew attention
to the killing of two of their soldiers in a Pakistani border attack, as well as the "barbaric"
mutilation of the bodies of the soldiers. For its part, Pakistan denied India's version of the events.
Although both countries initially appeared to be interested in de-escalating the tensions, on Jan. 12,
India Review 2017
Page 155 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
2013, the Indian military was hinting that it would entertain its options to counter Pakistan's
violation of a prevailing ceasefire at the Line of Control. Indian Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne
said in an interview with the media that although the two countries had mechanisms like the Line
of Control and the 2003 ceasefire agreement in place, "violations with impunity" were
"unacceptable." He continued, "We are watching the situation carefully, if the violations continue,
perhaps we may have to think of some other options for compliance."
Taking an even stronger tone, the Indian army chief, General Bikram Singh, accused Pakistan of
being involved in the planning of the attacks that left two Indian soldiers dead. He characterized the
bloodshed was "pre-meditated, pre-planned activity" and called on Indian troops to be "aggressive
and offensive in the face of provocation and fire" from Pakistan. Moreover, on Jan. 15, 2013,
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed a warning to Pakistan on the matter of
Kashmir, saying it "cannot be business as usual" with Pakistan after the deaths of two Indian
soldiers. He made particular mention of the fact that one soldier was beheaded -- an apparent
reference to the mutilation of the bodies of the soldiers noted above. In addition to the Indian army
chief's warning that "aggressive" consequences would be in the offing, Indian authorities also halted
a planned "visa on arrival" program for some Pakistani citizens.
In the second week of February 2013, violent protests broke out in the Indian-controlled Kashmir,
with more than 35 people -- including 23 policemen -- injured as a result. The eruption of violence
appeared to be in response to the execution of Mohammed Afzal Guru, who was convicted by
Indian authorities for his involvement in the 201 terrorist attack on the Indian House of
Parliament. That attack was linked to two Pakistan-based terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and
Jaish-e-Mohammad, with control over contested Kashmir at the center of their grievances. Guru
was sentenced to death in 2004 by the Indian Supreme Court for his role in that attack that
audacious attack on the Indian parliament. The death sentence was set to be carried out in 2006,
however, it was delayed following a mercy petition by Guru's wife. Now, in 2013, the execution
had taken place, evidently sparking the anger of some in the disputed territory of Kashmir.
At the start of May 2013, an Indian national who was convicted of spying by a court in Pakistan
and subsequently jailed in that country as he awaited a death sentence, died at the hands of fellow
inmates. At issue in that court case was Sarabjit Singh's role in a series of bomb attacks that left 14
people dead in Pakistan in 1990. Singh and his family have long insisted that he was innocent and
accidentally strayed into Pakistani territory where he was arrested. However, those claims fell on
deaf ears in Pakistan with mercy petition after mercy petition rejected by both the Pakistani court
system and then-President Pervez Musharraf.
In 2013, Sarabjit Singh had been attacked by his fellow prisoners at the Kot Lakhpat jail in the
Pakistani city of Lahore; he succumbed to a coma and was taken to the Jinnah hospital where he
died.
Indians at home recoiled in horror at the news while the office Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
India Review 2017
Page 156 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Singh demanded that the perpetrators be brought to justice for their "barbaric" attack. The Indian
prime minister also addressed the issue personally, asserting via the social media venue Twitter,
"Particularly regrettable that the Govt of Pakistan did not heed the pleas.... to take a humanitarian
view of this case." The incident was not expected to help relations between the two nuclearized
countries on the Indian subcontinent -- India and Pakistan -- who had already fought a few wars
and remained at odds over Kashmir's jurisdiction.
It should be noted that on the day Singh was cremated, a Pakistani prisoner , Sanaullah Ranjay,
was attacked by a fellow inmate at a maximum-security prison in Indian-administered Kashmir .
He ultimately died of multi-organ failure at a hospital in India. Authorities in India said that ranjay's
body would be returned to Pakistan, while Pakistani authorities demanded an investigation into the
matter. Ranjay had been held in jail for close to two decades on chargest related to militant
extremist activities.
In October 2014, intense fighting broke out between Pakistani and Indian forces in the Indiancontrolled region of Kashmir in the Himalayas. The clashes began at the start of October 2014 and
lasted more than a week, with nine Pakistani and eight Indian civilians being killed in the crossfire
of violence between the two sides. At least 18,000 Indian nationals fled the area of Jammu to
escape the violence, and claimed they were enduring harsh conditions at relief camps as they
waited for the fighting to end.
While Kashmir is legally under Indian jurisdiction, it is home to a mostly Muslim population and
claimed by Pakistan. For years, it has been the source of an intractable flashpoint between the two
countries, even leading to war at times. Sporadic exchanges of gun fire and even clashes erupt
despite a ceasefire that has remained mostly in tact since 2003; however, heavy fighting that leads
to the deaths of civilians, of the type experienced in October 2014 can be regarded as a relative
rarity.
India blamed Pakistan for the fighting in October 2014, saying that its own forces had retaliated to
machine gun fire and mortar attacks on various positions along the border. Throughout, India has
placed the responsibility for eruptions of fighting along the border on Pakistani troops, saying that
they have offered cover to separatists, militants, and extremists as they violated the border and
entered India's territory -- potentially with an eye on carrying out terrorist attacks in India. Indeed,
there have been no shortage of terror attacks by Pakistani Islamic terrorists on India over the issue
of Kashmir. One of the most significant was the storming of the Indian parliament in 2001 by
Pakistani Islamic extremists from Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad -- both known
Pakistani terrorist groups with aspirations in Kashmir. For its part, Pakistan typically downplays its
role as a center and venue for Islamic terrorists (facts to the contrary notwithstanding) and
normally accuses India of inflating its claims that Pakistanis are violating the border and plotting
attacks on Indian territory.
India Review 2017
Page 157 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Returning to the volatile conditions in October 2014 in Kashmir, Indian authorities expressed
concern over the eruption of violence and urged a resolution. In an interview with the media, Arup
Raha, the Air Chief Marshall of the Indian Air Force said: "We are all concerned and want an early
solution to it [the clashes]." He continued, "We don't want to let the issue become serious."
In the background of these developments in Kashmir were the political dynamics in the respective
capitals of New Delhi and Islamabad.
In the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was dealing with oppostion
protests and an ineffective policy of dealing with Islamist terrorists, such as the Taliban. A
weakened Sharif became dependent on the Pakistani military to hold onto power, and thus has had
to concede his own predilections in favor of the military's stance towards India. That stance was
not particularly hospitable to the notion of reconciliation with India.
Meanwhile, in the Indian capital of New Delhi, newly-elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi,
whose history of hardline positions against Muslims earned him both praise and condemnations,
was riding high in a wave of popular support. As a known Hindu nationalist, he would likely be
allowed a great deal of latitude in dealing with Pakistani aggression. Modi's tougher stances with
Pakistan were illustrated by his decisions to cancel talks with Pakistan and not meet with Nawaz
during meetings of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2014.
Editor's Note
Kashmir has been a flashpoint for several decades. A fiercely disputed territory, Kashmir is legally
administered by India, but claimed by Pakistan. The dispute has resulted in conflicted conditions
on the Indian sub-continent, which have frequently resulted in armed conflict. Although a final
status agreement has yet to be reached, the "Line of Control" that separates Indian-controlled
Kashmir from Pakistani territory serves as the de facto international border between the two
countries. The geopolitical importance of the dispute has been confounded by both sides’
acquisition of nuclear weapons in 1998. In recent years, India has accused Pakistan of backing
militants that have attacked civilian and military targets inside Indian-controlled Kashmir. Indeed,
groups such as Lashkar e Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen have carried out terrorist attacks with an
eye on ultimately taking control of Kashmir. The group has been said that its aspirations in
Kashmir are linked with the broader jihadist efforts. Despite not being able to comprehensively
resolve the conflict, India and Pakistan have made some progress in recent years in agreeing to
establish transportation links such as a bus service across the "Line of Control," and more recently,
the easing of visa restrictions. But the clashes in early 2013, particularly punctuated by the brutal
killings of two Indian soldiers, resulted in India's decision to halt plans for a "visa on demand"
program. The eruption of violence along the border in 2014 was not expected to improve the
situation. Indeed, the political conditions in the respective capitals of New Delhi and Islamabad
were not conducive to reconciliation. Instead, the leadership in India and Pakistan were more
India Review 2017
Page 158 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
likely to stake out hard line -- and nationalistic -- positions, with neither side likely willing to cede
ground.
Taliban suicide bomber carries out attack on Pakistani-Indian border
At the start of November 2014, a suicide bomber carried out attack on the Pakistani-Indian border,
killing more than 45 people and injuring at least 70 more as a result. The Islamic terror group, the
Taliban, claimed responsibility for the act of violence, saying it was revenge against the Pakistani
army, which was carrying out an anti-Taliban offensive in the tribal areas on the Afghan-Pak
border. This act of revenge, however, took place at a crossing at Lahore on the border with India,
although no Indian troops were killed as a result. The Taliban attack on the border crossing at
Lahore on Nov. 2, 2014 in reaction to the military's offensive operation only served to underline
the reality that Islamic terror groups were, indeed, functioning in Pakistan. Indeed, they posed a
threat to regional security.
Relations with the People's Republic of China (PROC)
Despite the historical suspicions that remain following the 1962 border war between India and
China and the continuing territorial/boundary disputes, their relations have improved somewhat
since 1988. Both countries have sought to reduce tensions along the frontier, expand trade and
cultural ties, and normalize relations.
A series of high-level visits between the two nations has played a useful role in improving relations.
In December 1996, Chinese President Jiang Zemin visited India on a tour of South Asia. While in
New Delhi, he signed, with Indian Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda, a series of confidencebuilding measures along the disputed Sino-Indian border. These measures included troop
reductions and weapons limitations along the border.
Sino-Indian relations suffered a setback in May 1998 when India blamed its nuclear tests on
potential threats from China. These accusations followed the Indian Defense Minister's criticism of
alleged Chinese "aggressive actions" in Pakistan and Myanmar. Since then, India has worked to
improve relations with China and is currently soliciting China's support in the ongoing conflict with
Pakistan over Kashmir. Thus far, China has remained neutral, and, as noted above, has called for a
dialogue between the two sides. But in mid-1999 when Panchen Lama, the third highest leader of
Tibetan Buddhists fled from his monastery in Lhasa to seek refuge in India, the old tensions come
to the surface once again. Though India has not yet officially given asylum to the young lama, he is
unlikely to be ever returned to China and hence the episode will continue to spring up in bilateral
talks.
Indian President K R Narayanan visited China in 2000, setting off yet another thaw in the bilateral
India Review 2017
Page 159 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
relations. The Indo-Chinese trade has also grown dramatically in the last two years, reaching a total
of over $2 billion, a growth of over 100 percent since 1999. Though Indian industry feared that
cheap Chinese imports would affect them severely, the trade boom is likely to continue for
sometime. And now, for the first time in the modern history of the two ancient neighbors,
economic relations will become an important part of their bilateral relations, just as it was
thousands of years ago.
In June 2003, India reached an agreement with China over Tibet and Sikkim respectively. The
agreement not only attempted to resolve the geopolitical issues associated with the areas in
question, but also established a landmark cross-border trade agreement. Specifically, India formally
recognized the Tibetan autonomous region as part of the People's Republic of China, while China,
agreed to border trade through the north-east Indian state of Sikkim. The trade agreement
effectively demonstrated Beijing's recognition of India's claim over that area. In sum, the
agreement functioned to boost bilateral relations between the two Asian countries, which have been
plagued by dismal relations over problematic border issues.
India's recognition of Tibet did not affect the position of the exiled leadership of the region. The
spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, who lives in the Indian town of Dharamsala, said he still
wished to pursue talks with China regarding Tibet's independence. Also notable is the fact that the
Indian government has made a subtle distinction between the Tibet autonomous region and the
whole of Tibet.
Other Significant Relations:
Relations with the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (Confederation of
Independent States, CIS)
India has had a long and stable relationship with the then Soviet Union, which dates back to the
independence of India. The Soviet Union has been the largest trading partner for India as well as
its biggest and most reliable supplier of defense items. Though in the initial years the Soviet Union
adopted a neutral stance in the growing tensions with Pakistan. In fact, in 1951, the Soviet Union
attempted to encourage some Pakistani Army officials to stage a coup. However, the coup failed
and the Soviet interest in Pakistan as a cold war ally subsided.
The real growth in bilateral relations came during the period of Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev,
from the late 1960s. In the next two decades, the Indo-Soviet ties blossomed in all aspects-political,
military, economic, science and technology and culture. The real turning point, however, came in
early 1971 when India and the Soviet Union signed a Peace and Friendship Treaty, which was
literally a defense pact as well. The treaty had its first test fairly soon as India and Pakistan went to
war over the Bangladesh issue in December 1971. The Soviet Union lived up to its part of the
India Review 2017
Page 160 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
bargain by dispatching a flotilla to the Bay of Bengal in order to counter the American Seventh
Fleet that had been sent in order to pressure India.
Since then the bilateral ties moved from strength to strength, with barely any differences or
tensions. Though India maintained its non-aligned nature in the Cold War, it did not affect the
relationship with the Soviets.
However, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) had major repercussions for the bilateral ties. India's substantial trade
with the Soviet Union plummeted and has yet to recover. The military supply relationships were
also disrupted, although temporarily. In the early and mid nineties, Indian defense forces did face
some awkward moments as the Russians had been unable to supply spare parts for several critical
equipment including aircraft and naval ships.
The relationship found its feet again in January 1993 when Russian President Boris Yeltsin visited
New Delhi, in order to cement the relationship. The two sides have since then also signed a long
pending deal under which Russia will construct a 2000 megawatt nuclear power plant in southern
Indian state of Tamil Nadu. The deal is the biggest single commercial deal between the two nations
and also is the first time that the Russians are constructing a nuclear power plant in India.
The new Russian President Vladimir Putin has also emphasized the importance of Indo-Russian
relations and has sent some of his senior ministers on visits to India. He himself visited India in
October, barely six months after his inauguration, indicating the importance of Indo-Russian
relations for his administration.
In May 2000, when Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his decision to visit India later in
the year, the comparisons had already begun with the visit by the U.S. President Bill Clinton in
March 2000.
It is a rare year when India has received the presidents of both the countries and hence the Indian
media was quick to draw parallels between the Clinton and Putin visits. Both visits were four days
in duration; both stayed in the same hotel and even the same suite in New Delhi; and both were
seen as path-breaking visits for the bilateral relationship.
In the end, Putin's visit may have yielded more direct and immediate results for Russia than
Clinton's did for America. For, Putin walked away with the largest ever defense deal signed
between India and Russia-amounting to over four billion dollars.
The Putin visit was key for India and Russia in several ways. The visit-the first by a Russian
president to India since the trip by Boris Yeltsin in 1993-was extremely crucial in bringing the
bilateral relations between the two countries back on the track. Even though there have been no
India Review 2017
Page 161 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
major differences between India and Russia in the last eight years the relationship was certainly
missing the special warmth that had been the highlight of the Indo-Soviet friendship.
India did not spare anything to make the visit a success. Putin, along with Indian Prime Minister
Atal Behari Vajpayee addressed a joint session of both the houses of the Indian Parliament. He also
held prolonged discussions with Vajpayee and his ministerial team about reinforcing various aspects
of the bilateral relationship including cooperation on nuclear power production. Russia is already
constructing a 2000 megawatt nuclear power complex in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu
and is keen to win more such contracts from India, which has among the most ambitious nuclear
power production projects in the world. Russia and India have also agreed to regenerate their ageold cooperation in the field of science and technology, which had taken a backseat during the last
decade largely due to the Russian preoccupation with its internal political and economic situation.
The Putin visit certainly succeeded in reinforcing the relationship and also brought back memories
of the good old days for the two countries. A number of crucial decisions were taken during the
Putin visit. India and Russia signed its biggest ever defense deal when India agreed to buy 300 T90 tanks and a 45,000 ton aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov from the Russians. India also has the
license to manufacture 140 multi-role Sukhoi Su 30 MKI aircraft.
The two countries also signed a new treaty reiterating the strong ties that have existed between the
two nations since Indian independence. The Strategic Partnership Declaration calls for an annual
summit meeting between the two nations and is designed to elevate the relationship to a much
higher orbit. The two countries have also decided to redevelop their economic relationship. In the
Soviet days' Soviet Union was the biggest trading partner for India. However, bilateral trade has
since collapsed and during Putin's visit, as well as some other earlier high level contacts, the need
to re-establish the economic relationship was highlighted.
A potential disagreement between the two allies was nipped in the bud in May 2001 during the visit
of Indian External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh to Moscow. Russia had been worried over recent
statements from Delhi that seemed to be in support of the controversial National Missile Defense
system proposed by the U.S. administration. Singh assured Putin and his team that India had not
changed its position on continued support for the Anti Ballistic Missle Treaty and that it had only
found merit in some arguments of Washington about the need to update ABM and the new threat
scenarios emerging across the globe. Singh used his visit to cement the traditionally warm ties
further and India and Russia have agreed to work together in various fields including defense and
science and technology.
In recent years, Russia has tried to play a key role in minimizing tensions between India and
Pakistan.
India Review 2017
Page 162 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Relations with the United States
For most of the time since independence, Indian relations with the United States (U.S.) have been
cool and low-key, despite the fact that the two countries are the world's biggest democracies.
Perhaps cool relations are due to the fact that the United States chose to side with Pakistan ever
since Indian independence. The U.S. sided with Pakistan in the Kashmir conflict that erupted at
the time of independence. The U.S. supported Pakistan both militarily in the battlefield by
supplying weapons, and politically at the United Nations by moving anti-India resolutions at the
United Nations Security Council. Although the U.S. supplied some key weapons to India in its
conflict with China in 1962, the relations between the countries again dipped soon afterwards. In
the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pakistan wars, the U.S. took a much more proactive pro-Pakistan stance,
moving part of its seventh fleet into the Bay of Bengal during the latter conflict.
U.S. leaders have traditionally viewed India with suspicion, despite its leadership of the non-aligned
movement. The U.S. believed India to be a key ally of the Soviet Union in the cold war, rather
than a neutral country. The U.S. also found itself increasingly dependent upon Pakistan to counter
the Soviets in central and south Asia. It invited Pakistan to join the Central Treaty Organization
and South East Asian Treaty Organization, the two military pacts for the Asian region, led by the
U.S. The U.S. need for Pakistan increased even more after the Iranian revolution of 1980 that
robbed the Americans of a key ally in the region. The proximity of the U.S. and Pakistan did push
India towards the Soviet Union, which soon emerged as its largest supplier of weapons as well its
biggest trading partner. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan only made matters worse for Indo-U.S.
relations as the U.S. began using Pakistan as a base to fight the Red Army in Afghanistan by
arming the mujahideen.
A brief improvement did come in 1978 with the visit of U.S. President Jimmy Carter to India, but
it was overshadowed by the subsequent developments in Afghanistan. But the relationship began
showing real signs of improvement and stability with the end of Cold War and the subsequent
break-up of the Soviet Union.
Indian-U.S. relations began improving in the 1980s, with expanding economic ties and a dialogue
on a range of issues. The end of the Cold War offered unprecedented opportunities to further
improve bilateral relations and cooperate on numerous common interests. Collaboration in science
and technology, which began in the 1960s in agriculture, expanded to a broad range of areas and
multilateral issues. The process gained immediacy and urgency in the late 1990s, especially due to
the changing relations between the U.S. and China. The U.S. administration can use India as a
counterweight to China and hence is keen to develop relations. Yet another and perhaps more
critical binding force came from the increasing threat of Islamic terrorism. Both the U.S. and India
have been affected by the Islamic extremists and realized the need for cooperation to counter this
growing menace. In 1999, the two sides have formed a working group to enhance cooperation in
this field.
India Review 2017
Page 163 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Trade is yet another area that has brought the two sides together. Ever since India launched its
economic liberalization program in 1991, the U.S. has become the largest foreign investor in India
and is the second largest trading partner for India, behind the European Union. The two countries
have recently begun regular dialogue on trade issues in order to smooth the rough edges in bilateral
trade.
The nuclear tests conducted in May 1998 by the government of Prime Minister Vajpayee and the
corresponding nuclear testing by Pakistan did add some strain to the U.S.-Indian relations. The
Indian government clarified it felt increasingly threatened by its surrounding nuclear environment
and it conducted the tests in order to reassure its people that their national interest would be
protected.
President Clinton imposed wide-ranging sanctions on India pursuant to the 1994 Nuclear
Proliferation Prevention Act. The United States encouraged India to sign the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty immediately and without condition. The U.S. also called for restraint in
missile and nuclear testing and deployment in both India and Pakistan.
More recently, the United States has expressed concern over the ongoing conflict in Kashmir. The
U.S. has called for a dialogue between the two sides and for Pakistan to do all it can to persuade
the insurgents to pull back from Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir.
A major turning point in the bilateral relations came in July 1999 during the Kargil war between
India and Pakistan. It was during this war that for the first time the U.S. took a decisively pro-India
stance, literally forcing Pakistan to withdraw its own army and also the insurgents from the Indian
territory. The U.S. also again criticized Pakistan for its continued aid to the militants in Kashmir,
urging the Pakistani-leadership to cut its relations with these groups. The U.S. has also been
worried for some time about the increasing grip of Islamic extremists over the Pakistani
government and hence has been moving away from Pakistan slowly but surely. In addition, the
U.S. has clearly stated that it supports the Indian position that the Kashmir dispute can be resolved
only through negotiations and that it is a bilateral issues rather than one that needs international
mediation - one of the basic demands of Pakistan.
The development of Indo-U.S. bilateral ties received a major boost in March 2000 when U.S.
President Bill Clinton visited India, becoming the first U.S. president to visit India in over 22 years.
The visit, which resulted in a series of agreements, boosted scientific, economic and political
relations. The relations were further cemented during the visit of Prime Minister Vajpayee to the
U.S. in September 2000. Vajpayee addressed a joint session of the U.S. Congress and also held
substantial talks with President Clinton and signed trade agreements opening Indian markets to the
U.S. farm exports.
India Review 2017
Page 164 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The U.S. for its part supported India's claim for a position as permanent member of the United
Nations Security Council and also agreed to back the Indian-sponsored convention against
terrorism at the United Nations General Assembly.
The general improvement in relations continued through 2001 as well, with regular high-level
contacts between the two administrations, ending speculation that a change in the administration in
Washington could affect the improvement in ties. U.S. President George W. Bush sent senior
officials from his administration soon after taking over in order to ensure that the momentum of the
development in relations continued. He also agreed to visit India in early 2002, indicating the
priority he placed on developing ties with India, which has become a strategic partner for the
United States in a rapidly evolving Asia, where China is often considered a rival rather than a
partner. Since the late 1990s, the United States has been eager to develop healthy relations with
India, South Korea and Japan - the three Asian neighbors of China with whom the U.S. feels it can
have a mutually beneficial partnership and also 'box China in'.
The U.S. was also flattered by the early positive response from India on the National Missle
Defense program, a self-declared top priority for the U.S. Even while its European and Asian allies
were debating the issue, the Indian government said it saw some positive elements in the NMD, a
statement that caused flutter not just in New Delhi, but Moscow as well. India was quick to clarify
the statement did not mean total support for the NMD and tried to convince old allies, the
Russians, that India was not jumping ship. Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh visited the United
States in May 2001 and had his first contacts with the administration, including with President
Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The increased threat of terrorist attacks against United States personnel in Asia in June 2001 also
helped India and the United States work together in eliminating this threat. Four persons were
arrested in New Delhi in June 2001 for allegedly planning a bombing attack on the United States
embassy in Delhi. The persons were allegedly part of a group funded by the Saudi national, Osama
bin Laden, who has been termed as the most wanted person by the United States. U.S. officials
also suspected that bin Laden played a role in threats to its personnel and defense forces in areas as
far as Bahrain.
The events following the September 11 terror attacks in the United States increased the pace of
development of ties between New Delhi and Washington. India was one of the first countries to
offer all support possible to the United States for conducting any operation in Afghanistan. It also
supported the American right to respond to the terrorist actions and to seek out the persons
responsible behind the terror. The world's two largest democracies had the same enemy, India
affirmed, pointing that it too had been suffering from terrorism exported from Afghanistan. U.S.
President George Bush acknowledged the threats faced by India and said that the global war on
terrorism needed to tackle all the groups behind terrorism, no matter where. He began by including
in his list of terrorist organizations, a couple of groups accused by India of terrorism.
India Review 2017
Page 165 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Moreover, since September 11, India and the U.S. have been in constant high level contacts over
the developments in Afghanistan. India began to share its political and military intelligence
resources in Afghanistan with the U.S. India has had very good relations with the Northern
Alliance and this relationship came in handy for the U.S. to build up a working relation with the
Northern Alliance and coordinate the war effort in Afghanistan
Within days of the fall of Kabul to the advancing armies of the Northern Alliance, an Indian
diplomatic mission to Afghanistan, the first-ever since New Delhi closed its embassy in Kabul in
1996, arrived in the war-torn country. The mission included a special envoy for Afghanistan and
arrived at the Bagram airfield near Kabul. The mission also included a medical and nursing
component, which will man the nearly 40-year-old Indira Gandhi hospital in Kabul. The threestory hospital for women and children, which was commissioned in the late sixties, was also the
best equipped in the entire country and provided not only treatment to women and children but
also trained Afghan doctors. India decided to revive the hospital, whose facilities had deteriorated
in the past few years, during the visit of a high-level official delegation to Kabul in November to reestablish its diplomatic presence in the Afghan capital. India sent a team of eight doctors and other
medical staff to help put the hospital operations back on track. Even when it had no official
presence in Kabul, India continued to provide medical relief to the people of Afghanistan. India has
been operating a hospital in Farkhor, on the Afghanistan-Tajikistan border, for more than a year to
provide treatment to Northern Alliance fighters and refugees fleeing from the Taliban rule.
Assassinated Northern Alliance commander Ahmed Shah Masood was also reportedly brought to
the hospital after being critically wounded in a suicide bomb attack by two Arabs disguised as
television reporters in early September 2001.
India's growing importance in the new setup in Kabul was evident within days of the appointment;
several ministers of the interim administration made visits to New Delhi to discuss ways of
developing bilateral relations. India also announced it would open consulate services in five Afghan
cities including Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif and Jalalabad.
India continues to be an ally of the United States on the war against terrorism in recent years.
India, however, was not a supporter of the United States' invasion and occupation of Iraq which
began in 2003. Three Indian nationals working for a Kuwaiti company in Iraq were taken hostage
in 2004; the government of India deployed an envoy to try to secure their release.
In 2005, even as India and Pakistan were on the road to constructive dialogue, relations between
India and the United States suffered a setback. At issue was the decision by the United States to
sell Pakistan F-16 fighter jets. Faced with India's anger at this decision, the United
States explained that it was selling the jets to India's rival to thank Pakistan for its help with the war
on terror. The United States offered to sell combat aircraft to India as well. Although India said it
would consider the offer, it was not entirely assuaged. Indeed, India pointed to an ideological
India Review 2017
Page 166 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
inconsistency on the part of the United States as regards Pakistan's involvement in the unregulated
spread of nuclear technology. Notably, a Pakistani nuclear scientist, Dr. Khan, is believed to have
supplied nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
On his first visit to India in early March 2006, United States President George W. Bush and Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh forged a nuclear accord. In the deal, India would have access to
civil nuclear technology from the United States in return for opening its nuclear facilities to
inspection. The United States also agreed to drop its objections to a proposed pipeline, which
would supply gas from Iran to India via Pakistan. Prime Minister Singh noted that India's military
and civilian nuclear facilities would be separated, with 14 of the 22 nuclear facilities being classified
for civilian use, in order to facilitate the requisite inspections process. The Indian leader praised
the deal saying, "We made history today."
The deal came on the heels of a similar agreement forged between India and France. India has
been eager to craft productive agreements with other countries because of its growing population
and its concomitant need for increased energy supplies. While only three percent of India's
electricity has been derived from nuclear power in recent years, up to 25 percent of the country's
electricity is expected to come from nuclear power by 2050. According to the Uranium
Information Center, India has limited coal and uranium reserves, however, its substantial thorium
reserves could potentially fuel a nuclear power program on an extended basis.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), hailed the
accord and said that India was "an important partner in the non-proliferation regime." For India,
the agreement held great significance as it effectively ended several years of international isolation
due to its nuclear policy. Within India, however, there is residual opposition to the deal by
adherents to India's long-standing tradition of non-alignment. For them, the notion of nonalignment has been undermined by closer ties with the United States.
Like his Indian counterpart, President Bush also characterized the agreement as "historic," but
warned that its actualization would depend upon ratification by the United States Congress. In that
legislative body, it was expected that there might be objections to the deal because India is not a
signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). For supporters of the NPT, there have
been objections to the fact that the deal sidesteps the existence of India's nuclear weapons
program. Meanwhile, other critics have noted that the deal prevents consistency on the matter of
nuclear proliferation, pointing to Washington's opposition to Iran's nuclear program.
In anticipation of such criticism, Bush said, "Congress has got to understand that it's in our
economic interests that India have a civilian nuclear power industry to help take the pressure off
the global demand for energy." Bush also highlighted growing bilateral trade between India and
the United States, as well as cooperation against terrorism. Additionally, he called for resolution
between India and Pakistan regarding the conflict over Kashmir.
India Review 2017
Page 167 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Bush's visit to India was opposed by various factions, including communist parties and Islamic
groups. Nevertheless, in July 2007, the United States and India completed negotiations on the
bilateral agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation, also known as the "123 agreement." This
agreement, signed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and External Affairs Minister
Mukherjee on October 10, 2008, governs civil nuclear trade between the two countries and opens
the door for American and Indian firms to participate in each other's civil nuclear energy sector.
Positive United States-India relations continued with the new Obama administration in recent
times. In July 2009, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to India to launch the
“Strategic Dialogue,” which called for collaboration in a number of areas, including energy, climate
change, trade, education, and counterterrorism. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited
Washington, D.C. in late November 2009 for the first state visit of the Obama administration.
President Barack Obama's first state dinner in 2009, the United States leader played host to Indian
Prime Minister Singh. The inaugural session of the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue was held June 14, 2010 in Washington, D.C. The event was very successful and showed progress in the U.S. India
relationship. President Barack Obama was visited India in the fall of 2010 where he received a
warm welcome from the Indian people.
Special Report
On Feb. 13, 2012, Israel's embassies in India and Georgia were struck by bomb attacks. In the
Indian capital city, a magnetic bomb attached to a vehicle left the wife of an Israeli diplomat
wounded as she traveled to retrieve her children from school at the American embassy. She was
said to be in stable condition in a New Delhi hospital. In the Georgian capital, a bomb was
discovered attached to a car in the Israeli diplomatic fleet. Georgian police were able to defuse the
bomb after an Israeli embassy employee alerted them to the situation in Tbilisi.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasted no time in accusing Iran of being behind the
two bombs, characterizing Iran as "the greatest exporter of terror in the world." Netanyahu also
observed that there were recent thwarted attacks on Jews and Israelis in places such as Azerbaijan
and Thailand,. Speaking of this trend, the Israeli prime minister noted, "In all these cases, the
elements behind the attacks were Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah." Israel said that its foreign
missions would be placed on high alert, given the current landscape.
While Iran offered no immediate response, it was certainly the case that Tehran had promised to
seek revenge for a number of targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, which that
country blames on Israel.
India Review 2017
Page 168 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
*** See above for information related to national security threats emanating from Pakistan
centering on the contentious issue of Kashmir. See "Political Conditions" in this Country Review
for more information related to threats to national security, particularly in the form of Pakistanbased Islamist terrorism. ***
Special Report
U.S. President Obama and Indian PM Modi announce new era in bilateral friendship and
cooperation
During his official visit to the world's largest democracy -- India -- United States President Barack
Obama planted a tree and laid a wreath at the memorial for Mahatma Gandhi at Raj Ghat in New
Delhi. Paying his respects to the father of independent India, President Obama paused for
contemplation at Gandhi's memorial, and placed two handfuls of rose petals on top. President
Obama also was the main guest at India's Republic Day celebrations where he was warmly
received by the enthusiastic Indian people.
It should be noted that Indian Prime Minister Modi broke protocol to personally receive President
Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as they arrived at the airport in New Dehli. Prime
Minister Narendra Modi hailed President Obama's historic visit, noting that India and the United
States were now embarking on a "new journey" of cooperation. President Obama struck a similar
tone, saying that his country welcomed its friendship with India.
In the realm of foreign relations, on Jan. 25, 2015, President Obama issued a joint announcement
with Indian Prime Minister Modi on civilian nuclear cooperation. At issue was a breakthrough
pact that would facilitate the supply of American civilian nuclear technology to India. Also on the
agenda were new renewable energy options. United States Ambassador Richard Verma said: "It
opens the door for US and other companies to come forward and actually help India towards
developing nuclear power and support its non carbon-based energy production." The United
States and India also agreed to cooperate on fighting terrorism.
At the start of February 2015, Indian oficials said that the "breakthrough" civilian nuclear deal
could be finalized later in the year. United States officials have said that two items were pending
before the agreement could be finalized: 1. India would have to ratify a United Nations nuclear
convention -- the International Atomic Energy Agency's Convention on Supplementary
Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC); and 2. An insurance concord would have to be
established preventing suppliers from being subject to draconian lawsuits in the event of nuclear
disasters.
India Review 2017
Page 169 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Special Report
Indian mission in Afghanistan targeted by Islamist militants
December 2015 was marked by a spate of attacks across Afghanistan at the hands of the notorious
Islamist extremist group, the Taliban. The start of 2016 fared no better with an attack on the
Indian diplomatic mission in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e-Sharif. The assailants were not
able to penetrate the compound for the Indian consulate and instead had occupied a building close
by. Nevertheless, there were reports of gun battles and explosions at the scene. It should be noted
that Indian diplomatic missions have long been favored targets for Islamist terrorists in
Afghanistan. The Indian embassy in Kabul was hit in both 2008 and 2009 with deadly
consequences, while the Indian consulate in Jalalabad was struck in 2013 and also led to the deaths
of several people. In 2015, the Indian consulate in Herat was the target of attack by gunmen, with
this attack at the start of 2016 being the latest effort of this type.
Written by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief at CountryWatch.com. See
Bibliography for sources. Supplementary sources: The United Nations Security Council, IPCS,
New Delhi, IDSA, New Delhi, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, The Times of India, New Delhi.
National Security
External Threats
India has a history of tumultuous relations with Pakistan. Their nuclear capabilities exacerbate the
risk posed by the periodic flare-ups of tension, to each other and to the entire region. China, India,
and Pakistan all claim sections of volatile Kashmir, the world's largest disputed territory. India's
poor relations with Pakistan devolved after attacks on the parliament in 2001 and attacks in
Mumbai (Bombay) in 2008, which both of were believed to be carried out by a Pakistan-based
terror group, Lashkar e-Taiba, although the parliament attack was orchestrated in coordination with
Jaish e-Mohammed, which is also Pakistan-based. India believes Pakistan-based Islamic
India Review 2017
Page 170 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
extremist groups, of which Kashmir may be a major rallying call, is the greatest pose the greatest
threat to national security.
That said, in late June 2009, faced with violent attacks by Maoist rebels, the Indian government
officially banned the Maoist Communist Party of India on the basis that it was a terrorist group.
Indeed, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh characterized the Maoist rebels as posing a grave
internal security threat to the country. One area of West Bengal was said to be under total Maoist
control, and the Indian government warned that five states around the eastern and central part of
the country could be subject to Maoist attacks, particularly in crowded areas traversed by civilians.
In fact, Maoist landmine blasts had already left a hefty death toll on Indian security forces.
Note: Most of the rest of India's highly militarized border with China is also disputed.
Crime
India is a substantial hub of narcotics trafficking activity. It is the largest producer in the world of
legal opiates, used in pharmaceuticals. Some of the product makes its way to international narcotics
markets, however. Methaqualone is also produced there and India remains vulnerable to money
laundering.
Insurgencies
Since 1989, the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir has claimed as many as 60,000 lives. See "Political
Conditions" for a full accounting of this matter. Sporadic ethnic violence plagues several states in
northeast India. Maoist extremists are active in East Central and Southern India. In the northeastern Indian state of Assam, separatist rebels, the United Liberation Front of Assam (Ulfa), have
been active.
Terrorism
Terrorist violence continues to pose a direct threat to India's security. In recent years, numerous
terrorist attacks there have been linked to the ongoing conflict in Jammu and Kashmir (see above
section on insurgencies). Attacks have occurred in other regions of India, as well.
In 2001, a group of terrorists launched an attack on the Indian Parliament House in New Delhi.
The Indian government accused two Pakistan-based terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-eMohammad for the attack.
In 2002, gunmen stormed a Hindu temple in the western state of Gudjarat, killing 25 people. Later
India Review 2017
Page 171 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
in 2002, there were clashes between militant Muslims and police in the city of Bangalore resulting
in the deaths of five militants and injuries to 13 policemen.
In 2003, over 50 people were killed and more than 130 were injured when two car bombs
exploded in India's main commercial city, Bombay (Mumbai). There were suggestions that a
militant Islamic student group may have been responsible. Students Islamic Movement of India
(SIMI) is a group aligned with the Pakistan-based militant Islamic group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which
was believed to have been responsible for the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament in 2001
(discussed above).
In 2005, a series of three bomb attacks left close to 60 people dead and over 200 injured in India's
capital city of New Dehli. A militant Islamic group by the name of Inqilabi claimed
responsibility.
In early 2006, three bomb blasts hit the northen Indian city of Varanasi. There was no immediate
claim of responsibility but because of Veranasi's importance as the religious center for Hinduism,
there was some speculation that the attacks might have been carried out by anti-Western and/or
Islamic militant factions.
In mid-2006, a series of seven bombs exploded on trains in Bombay (Mumbai). Reports
suggested that hundred of people had died. Again, Islamic militants were believed to have been
responsible.
In early 2007, a train bound from the Indian capital of Dehli to the Pakistan city of Lahore was hit
by a series of explosions. More than 65 people were reported to have been killed and several
more injured as a result of the blasts and resulting flames. A spokesperson for India's Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh asserted that the explosions were an "act of terror."
A series of well-coordinated bombs were detonated across the historic city of Jaipur in India on
May 13, 2008. The death toll was reported as 60 people, however, this number was subject to
change. The bombs blasts occurred within seven minutes of one another and went off in close
proximity to monuments. The city, located in Rajasthan, has been a popular tourist destination for
years and has had no history of violence or religious strife. Officials said that the attacks appeared
to be acts of terrorism although there was no immediate claim of responsibility. The motivation
behind the bombings was thusly something of a mystery. While Jaipur is inhabited mostly by
Hindus, it has also home to Muslim minority.
In June 2008, a bomb blast at a market in the north-eastern Indian state of Assam left at least six
people dead and about 80 others injured. Authorities placed the blame for the bombing on
separatist rebels, likely allied with or belonging to the United Liberation Front of Assam (Ulfa).
Experts suggested that the attack may have been carried out by a faction of Ulfa opposed to the
India Review 2017
Page 172 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
group's decision to carry out a truce.
On November 26, 2008, suspected Islamic militants waged a series of simultaneous terror attacks
in the heart of India's commercial capital of Mumbai. At least 175 people died as a result and
hundreds more were wounded in the attacks that lasted days. As noted above, it was believed to
be carried out by a Pakistan-based terror group, Lashkar e-Taiba.
Note: India is party to all twelve of the international conventions and protocols pertaining to
terrorism.
*** See "Political Conditions" and "Foreign Relations" in this Country Review for more
information related to threats to national security, particularly in the form of Pakistan-based
Islamist terrorism. ***
Defense Forces
Military Data
Military Branches:
Army, Navy (includes naval air arm), Air Force, Coast Guard
Eligible age to enter service:
16-18 years age for voluntary service (Army 17 1/2, Air Force 17, Navy 16 1/2); no conscription;
women may join as officers, but in combat roles as pilots only
Mandatory Service Terms:
N/A
Manpower in general population-fit for military service:
India Review 2017
Page 173 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
males age 16-49: 249,531,562
females age 16-49: 240,039,958
Manpower reaching eligible age annually:
Male: 12,151,065
Female: 10,745,891
Military Expenditures-Percent of GDP:
2.4%
Appendix: Kashmir
Introduction
"Jammu and Kashmir came into being as a single political and geographical entity following the
Treaty of Amristar between the British Government and Gulab singh signed on March 16, 1846.
The Treaty handed over the control of the Kashmir State to the Dogra ruler of Jammu who had
earlier annexed Ladakh. Thus a new State comprising three distinct religions of Jammu, Kashmir
and Ladakh was formed with Maharaja Gulab Singh as its founder ruler."
Source: Government of Jammu and Kashmir http://jammukashmir.nic.in/
Geography
"A major portion of Jammu and Kashmir State consists of the western Himalayas, which besides
many lofty mountain ranges with varying heights of 3000 to 6000 metres and above, also abound
in rivers, lakes, passes, glaciers, plateaus and plains. The number of streams, brooks, hill torrents
and rivers is also fairly large. The most important rivers are the Indus, Chenab, Jehlum and Ravi."
Source: Government of Jammu and Kashmir http://jammukashmir.nic.in/
India Review 2017
Page 174 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Cultural Background
"Jammu and Kashmir has the distinction of having multifaceted, variegated and unique cultural
blend, making it distinct from the rest of the country, not only from the different cultural forms and
heritage, but from geographical, demographically, ethical, social entities, forming a distinct
spectrum of diversity and diversions into Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh, all professing diverse
religion, language and culture, but continuously intermingling, making it vibrant specimens of
Indian Unity amidst diversity. Its different cultural forms like art and architecture, fair and festivals,
rites and rituals, seer and sagas, language and mountains, embedded in ageless period of history,
speak volumes of unity and diversity with unparalleled cultural cohesion and cultural service.
While the Kashmir has been the highest learning centre of Sanskrit and Persian where early IndoAryanic civilization has originated and flourshed, it has also been embracing point of advent of
Islam bringing its fold finest traditions of Persian civilization, tolerance, brotherhood and sacrifice.
Ladakh on the other hand, has been the highest and living centre of Tantrayan Buddhism. Jammu,
the same way, has been the seat of Rajas and Maharajas which have cemented and enriched the
cultural, historical and social bonds of all these diverse ethnic and linguistic divisions of the state.
The ancient archeological monuments and remnants speak volume of the district cultural traditions
of the state.
Kashmir is rightly said to be Nature's grand finale of beauty. In this masterpiece of earth's creation
seasons in strong individuality vie with one another in putting up exquisite patterns of charm and
loveliness. Nature has left an indelible mark on the folk performances of Kashmir as they are
intimately interlined with the moods and movements of the seasons.
Jammu the land of the Dogras, offer an entirely different fare of dances and music. Over the
centuries long spell of seperation from their soldier, husbands and brothers have led the hardy but
graceful women of the Duggar to evolve many diverting dances and songs to keep themselves in
cheer in their free moments. The songs of seperation the ever increasing yearning for reunion with
the beloved, the hard life on the mountain slopes and various other themes connected with their
day-to-day life find their echo in folk songs and dances.
Ladakh is the repository of ancient cultural heritage. It is the only place in the world where
Tantrayans Buddhism is practised as a way of life. People of this region are deeply drenched in
music, dance and drama which embody religious fervour. Ladakhi songs and dances are simple in
thought, content and performance to. Ladakhi dances reveal the simple and noble nature of the
Ladakhi people. Song and drama both are the means towards salvation."
Source: Government of Jammu and Kashmir http://jammukashmir.nic.in/
India Review 2017
Page 175 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Key Data regarding Jammu and Kashmir
CAPITAL: Summer(May-October)- Srinagar Winters(Novemenber-April)- Jammu
LANGUAGES : Urdu, Kashmiri, Hindi, Dogri, Pahari, Ladakhi,
POPULATION: 77,18,700
POPULATION GROWTH RATE 29%
SEX RATIO :923 (Females per 1000 males)
AREA : 2,22,236 Sq Kms.
POPULATION DENSITY : 34 (persons per sq. km)
POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LINE:(1987-88) 13.9%
URBANISATION RATIO 23.83(All India average: 25.7)
PERCENTAGE OF WORK FORCE IN POPULATION : 44.3 %
MAIN WORKERS TO TOTAL POPULATION :30.37 %
(All India Average 33.45 %)
AGRICULTURE WORKERS/TOTAL POPULATION :49 %
(All India Average 24.94 %)
TOTAL REPORTED AREA 24.16 Lakh Hectares
NET SOWN AREA 30%
AVERAGE SIZE OF LAND HOLDING 0.83 Hectares
NET IRRIGATED AREA/ NET SOWN AREA 42%
IRRIGATION INTENSITY 144%
GROSS CROPPED AREA 10.73 Lakh Hectares
CROPPING INTENSITY 146%
AREA UNDER HIGH YIELDING VARIETIES : 9.19 Lakh Hectares
FOOD GRAIN PRODUCTION 14.55 lakh MTs
LIVE STOCK POPULATION (1992)87.07 lakhs
TOTAL NUMBER OF BANK BRANCHES(March,1997) : 950
AVERAGE POPULATION PER BANK BRANCH: 8000
(National Average: 15000)
TOTAL BANK DEPOSITS (March,1997) : Rs. 5326.85 Crores
Source: Government of Jammu and Kashmir http://jammukashmir.nic.in/
Population of Jammu and Kashmir
"The projected population (1995) of the State, excluding the illegally occupied areas by Pakistan
and China, is 76.77 lakhs.The State with its summer and winter capitals at Srinagar and Jammu,
respectively, is divided into 14 districts.
India Review 2017
Page 176 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
In population, the State is one of the smallest in the country and accounts for less than one percent
of the people enumerated in 1981. Population showed sluggish growth in the first six decades of
the present century and the decadal growth rate ranged from 5.75 to 10.42 during 1901 to 1961.
The latest two decades have, however, shown growth of 29.65%and 29.69%, which reflects
considerable fall in death rate without any substantial fall in birth rate in the post independence
years."
GROWTH OF POPULATION
The State has registered a net addition of 13.71 lakh persons raising the population from 46.16
lakhs in 1971 to 59.87 lakhs in 1981. The state population contributes less than one percent of the
country’s population. Nevertheless, the rate of growth observed during the last two decades at
29.65 % and 29.69% has been substantially higher than the national growth rates of 24.80 % and
25% respectively. Thus, the decadal growth rate of population in the state that was around 10% in
the proceeding three decades has almost trebled in the last two decades. The annual growth rate of
2.97% during 1971 –81 is the highest the state has ever experienced.
RURAL AND URBAN POPULATION
As against one third in Maharashtra and West Bengal and one fourth in Karantaka, only one fifth
of the population in J&K resides in urban areas. 23.83 % population has been recorded as urban in
the state against the National Average of 25.72%. Jammu city has recorded very rapid growth and
presently ranks as the 48th bigest city in the country. Besides the cities of Jammu and Srinagar,
other important towns are the district headquarters of Anantnag, Pulwama,Budgam, Baramulla,
Kupwara, Udhampur, Kathua,Rajouri ,Poonch ,Doda, Leh and Kargil.. The remaining towns
continue to have many rural features and pursuits reflecting the state’s predominant Agro-pastoral
economy.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Against the All India Level of 36.23 % as per 1981 census, the rate of literacy for the State is
indicated as 26.67% with 45.56% for urban areas and 212.63% in the rural areas, 36.29% among
males and 15.88% only among females. District Jammu with 42.86% tops the literacy level with
male literacy at 52.60% and female literacy at 32.24%. A special emphasis is being laid on
development of human resources in the State. There are more than 15000 schools with an
enrolment of about 1.5 million. Similarly, there are 32 colleges with an enrolment of about 0.40
lakhs. For higher studies, there are now three universities one in Jammu and others in Kashmir.
The total number of students in general education at the university stage is about 0.4 lakhs which
includes 14083 females. The number has gone up six fold since 1950-51 when it was 2669 only.
The professional Institutions include two Engineering Colleges in Srinagar and Jammu, four
Polytechnics, 37 Industrial Training Institutes with an enrolment of about 4000. There is one
Medical Institute, four Medical Colleges, 100 Hospitals, 343 Primary Health Centers and 3326
Medical Sub Centers with total bed strength of more than 10,000 in the State. The availability of
human resources includes about 23000 graduates and post graduates, 4500 Degree/Diploma
India Review 2017
Page 177 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Engineers, about 12000 ITI trained personnel, and other skilled personnel.
Source: Government of Jammu and Kashmir http://jammukashmir.nic.in/
Summary: Conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir
Kashmir is a fiercely disputed territory claimed by both India and Pakistan. The disputed has
caused tense conditions on the subcontinent that have frequently resulted in armed conflict.
Although a final status agreement has yet to be reached, the Line of Control that separates Indianand Pakistani-controlled Kashmir serves as the de facto international border between the two
countries. The geopolitical importance of the dispute has been confounded by both sides’
acquisition of nuclear weapons in 1998. In recent years, India has accused Pakistan of backing
militants that have attacked civilian and military targets inside Indian-controlled Kashmir. Despite
not being able to comprehensively resolve the conflict, India and Pakistan have made some
progress in recent years in agreeing to establish transportation links such as a bus service across the
Line of Control.
Background: Indo-Pakistani relations and Kashmir
First Kashmir War: 1947-48
After being granted its independence in 1947, British India was partitioned into India, which had a
Hindu majority, and Pakistan, which had a Muslim majority. At first, Maharaja Hari Singh was
given a choice as to which state he wanted the region of Kashmir to join. Singh initially wanted
Kashmir to remain independent and was hesitant to allow Kashmiris to vote on the issue.
Frustrated by this, Pakistan invaded backed an invasion of Kashmir by tribal forces, eventually
ordering Pakistani troops to invade as well. Singh subsequently agreed to join India and requested
Indian military assistance to expel the Pakistanis. Pakistan took its case to the United Nations
Security Council, arguing that Kashmir’s accession to India was illegal because the people of
Kashmir were not given a vote on the issue. India also approached the Security Council,
demanding that Pakistan withdraw its forces. The Security Council called for Pakistan to
withdraw its troops and also called for a plebiscite to be held under U.N. auspices to determine
Kashmir’s future status. Both sides nonetheless maintained their troop presence in Kashmir and a
plebiscite was never held.
In 1949, India and Pakistan signed the Karachi agreement, which established a cease-fire line to be
monitored by the United Nations (U.N.). The cease-fire line eventually became know as the Line
of Control and demarcates Indian- and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, serving as a de facto
international border. Under the cease-fire agreement, Pakistan controlled one-third of Kashmir
while India administered two-thirds. In 1954, Kashmir’s formal accession to India was
India Review 2017
Page 178 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
completed.
In 1962-63, the United States (U.S.) and the United Kingdom (U.K) sponsored talks between
India and Pakistan. No agreement was reached. In 1965, India and Pakistan went to war again.
Pakistan launched a covert offensive across the cease-fire line into Indian-administered Kashmir. In
response, India crossed Pakistan’s international border at Lahore. After three weeks, both sides
agreed to a U.N-sponsored ceasefire. Subsequent negotiations held in January 1966 in Tashkent
yielded an agreement in which both sides pledged to solve their disputes through peaceful means.
India returned the territory it had seized during the war.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
In 1971, Pakistan became engulfed by civil war. East Pakistan revolted against the West Pakistani
army, demanding regional autonomy. The situation produced a flood of East Pakistani refugees in
India. India provided support to the separatists, eventually invading East Pakistan. As a result,
East Pakistan became an independent country on December 6, 1971 and subsequently changed its
name to Bangladesh. The U.S. supported Pakistan during the conflict, providing arms and even
sending naval forces to the region to put pressure on India. The Soviet Union, meanwhile, backed
India. Neither superpower directly intervened in the conflict.
India and Pakistan signed the Simla agreement in 1972, which formally ended the war and
conveyed the principles that would govern future relations between the two countries. Although
the war did not directly involve the issue of Kashmir, the accord nonetheless recognized the Line
of Control as the de facto border between India and Pakistan. Both sides agreed to solve future
disputes through bilateral negotiations and vowed never to unilaterally alter the Line of Control
irrespective of what each side considered its territory. In 1974, the Kashmiri state government
reaffirmed its status as part of India. Pakistan again challenged the legitimacy of this action.
Insurgency
In 1989, an armed Muslim insurgency began in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Some insurgents
wanted to merge with Pakistan while others supported Kashmiri independence. India alleged that
Pakistani intelligence was providing the insurgents with logistical and material support in training
camps inside Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. Pakistan denied this claim, stating that it was only
providing them diplomatic and moral support. The Islamist orientation of the insurgency grew
increasingly radicalized as foreign mujahidden rebels arrived from Afghanistan, where they had
fought the Soviets.
In 1996, India and Pakistan participated in talks covering an array of issues, including the status of
Kashmir. India and Pakistan could not reach an agreement, though they committed themselves to
more negotiations.
India Review 2017
Page 179 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
In 1998, India and Pakistan both tested nuclear weapons. The tests drew widespread
condemnation from the international community. That same year, Pakistan tested a long rang
missile capable of striking India. The nuclear issue confounded fears that conflict could once
against erupt on the subcontinent – with even more devastating consequences.
Kargil War
In 1999, the prime ministers of the two countries signed the Lahore accord, which committed each
side to intensifying efforts to solve the Kashmir dispute. That same year, however, the issue of
Pakistani support for the insurgency in Indian-controlled Kashmir once again came to the fore.
India accused Pakistan of sending troops to support insurgents in Kargil on the Indian side of the
Line of Control. India also alleged that these troops and militants had secured peaks that would
allow Pakistan to control a strategic highway that links Jammu and Kashmir. This highway is
critical to India’s civilian and military infrastructure. India carried out air strikes against the
Pakistani-backed forces. Under pressure from the U.S., Pakistan called for insurgent groups to
pull back from the Line of Control. Some groups complied, while others refused until the Indian
military defeated them. Although Pakistan denied allowing its troops to cross the Line of Control,
later evidence suggests a high degree of coordination between the Pakistani military and the
insurgents inside Indian territory. Tens of thousands of people on both sides of the Line of Control
fled their homes during the fighting.
Later in 1999, an Indian airliner was hijacked en route from Katmandu, Nepal to New Delhi. The
hijackers demanded the release of over 40 Kashmiri militants as ransom. India eventually released
three of the militants and accused Pakistani intelligence of orchestrating the hijacking.
In 2000, India announced that it would be pulling back its military forces from the Line of Control
in an effort to ease regional tensions. In response, Pakistan’s president Musharraf expressed his
willingness to engage in talks with India. India, however, rejected his offer because it did not want
to legitimize Musharraf’s military government nor did it want to hold talks until Pakistan stopped
backing Kashmiri militants. In 2001, however, India invited Pakistan’s president to New Delhi. At
the meeting, Pakistan argued that relations between the two countries could not improve until the
issue of Kashmir was addressed. India responded that the issue was too difficult to solve at that
time and that the two sides would have to address other issues, such as trade, before dealing with
Kashmir. The talks failed to yield an agreement.
Although Pakistan’s cooperation in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks brought about more
friendly relations between Pakistan in the West, the situation along the Line of Control continued to
worsen. In October 2001, militants attacked the Kashmiri assembly in Srinagar, killing 38 people.
On December 2001, militants attacked India’s Parliament House in New Delhi, killing 14 people.
India accused Pakistan of allowing the terrorist groups responsible for the attacks to operate on
Pakistani territory. Pakistan denied the allegations and vowed to respond to an attack by India.
Both sides began to amass troops along the border, heightening fears that conflict was imminent.
India Review 2017
Page 180 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The U.S. put pressure on the two sides to take actions to calm the situation.
In February 2002, Pakistani troops shot down an aircraft carrying a senior Indian military
commander near Kargil. In May 2002, an attack on an army camp in Indian-controlled Kashmir
killed 30 people. Both sides began to exchange fire across the Line of Control, sparking more
international concern.
In June 2002, a regional security summit was held in Kazakhstan as tensions between the two
countries continued to rise. India refused to reach an agreement until Pakistan took steps to stop
cross-border terrorism. Later that year, both countries agreed to a cease-fire along the Line of
Control.
In early 2004, India and Pakistan initiated a composite dialogue on all issues between them,
including Kashmir. These were their first formal talks in three years. Since then, some positive
developments have occurred. In April 2005, a bus line between the Srinagar and Muzaffarabad
has started service. The bus line allowed families divided across the Line of Control to meet for the
first time since 1956. Despite this, many Kashmiri families remain frustrated that bureaucratic
procedures have allowed only a relatively small number of individuals to cross the border.
President Musharraf shocked many observers in October 2004 when he suggested that the two
countries “think outside the box” and even consider an arrangement in which India and Pakistan
would jointly govern a demilitarized Kashmir. President Musharraf also stated that he would be
wiling to withdraw Pakistan’s demand for a plebiscite.
On October 8, 2005, the region experienced a devastating earthquake. It quickly became clear that
restrictions on crossing the Line of Control were hindering the delivery of humanitarian aid. On
October 30, 2005, only day after a terrorist attack killed 61 in Delhi, both countries agreed to open
five crossing points along the Line of Control to facilitate relief efforts and allow people to visit
their families. This was to be the first opening of the border since the conflict began. Kashmiris on
both sides of the Line of Control were required to submit applications before they would be
allowed to travel to the other side. Both countries disagreed about the process of exchanging lists of
people who would be allowed to cross.
In January 2006, India and Pakistan stated committed themselves to having more talks on
Kashmir.
In April 2006, a terrorist attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir left 35 Hindus dead just stays before
a meeting between the Indian prime minister and Kashmiri separatists. India alleged that a terrorist
group based in Pakistan was behind the attack. In May 2006, India and Pakistan reached a trade
agreement that allows trucks to travel from Srinagar and Muzaffarabad across the Line of Control.
A period of relative calm in the contested region of Kashmir came to an end in May 2008. Islamic
India Review 2017
Page 181 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
militants in the Samba district to the south of Jammu were reported to have killed two civilians
before being faced with security forces. Subsequent clashed resulted in the death of one soldier.
Note: The area of Kashmir has seen much violence over the years due to its contested status in
which it is officially under Indian control but claimed by Pakistan. Islamic militants from across
the border in Pakistan have repeatedly tried to wrest control from India through violent means and
the use of terror tactics. The issue has been the main source of strife between the two nuclear
powers, even leading to more than on war in the past.
Current Initiative
The issue of Kashmir is currently being handled on a bilateral basis absent of international
mediation. The talks on Kashmir are part of broader negotiations known as the “composite
dialogue” that seeks to address a wide range of bilateral issues and eventually normalize relations
between the two countries. Under the composite dialogue, all issues are open for discussion. A
cease-fire has been in effect along the Line of Control since November 2003. A third round of
normalization talks was set to conclude in July 2006. Despite talks on Kashmir, no comprehensive
agreement has been reached. In India’s view, progress needs to first be made with confidencebuilding measures before the political climate on the subcontinent will be ripe enough to address
Kashmir. Pakistan, meanwhile, views Kashmir as the main obstacle to progress in other bilateral
areas. Terrorist attacks against targets in Indian-administered Kashmir continue to threaten the
productivity of negotiations.
Foreign Policy Positions of Key Players
India
As a rising global power, India seeks to prevent the dispute in Kashmir from destabilizing the
region. India wants the Line of Control to be formalized as the official international border and
rejects the option of Kashmir becoming an independent state. India has also consistently rejected
calls for a plebiscite to be held. India believes that by participating in state elections, Kashmiri
voters declared their desire to be part of India. India has resisted any efforts to include third party
mediators in the negotiations, arguing that the 1972 Simla accord requires that the issue be
addressed through bilateral negotiations. India has balked at Pakistan’s calls for the creation of a
“roadmap for peace” similar to what has guided the Middle East peace process. India has,
however, engaged in negotiations with some moderate elements of the Kashmiri separatist
movement. Domestically, the Indian government has sought to remedy the frustrations of
Kashmiris by focusing on economic development, promoting cross-border interactions, and
granting greater political autonomy. It refuses to withdraw its security forces from Kashmir until
India Review 2017
Page 182 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Pakistan takes greater steps toward preventing terrorism. In March 2006, India reiterated its
unwillingness to redraw the border, though it hoped to improve the political climate in Kashmir and
make the border “just lines on a map.”
Pakistan
The Pakistani government believes that Kashmir should have joined with Pakistan because it had a
Muslim majority. Indian-controlled Kashmir is the only state in India in which Muslims constitute a
majority. Pakistan does not accept the legitimacy of the Maharaja’s accession to India. Pakistan
does not want to make the Line of Control the official international border because the Kashmir
Valley, which has a Muslim majority, would remain part of India. Instead, Pakistan wants to solve
the conflict by holding a plebiscite to let the Kashmiri people decide their own fate, although
President Musharraf hinted that he might be willing to put this demand aside in December 2005.
Pakistan holds the position that Kashmiris themselves should be allowed to participate in Indo-Pak
negotiations. Pakistan is currently against the option of Kashmir becoming an independent state.
Pakistan denies providing logistical and material support to Kashmiri insurgents, instead arguing
that the Indian military’s presence in Kashmir fuels desperation and alienation. When President
Bush signed a nuclear deal with India, Pakistan expressed its hope that the U.S. would put pressure
on India to find a solution to the conflict. Pakistan accuses the Indian military of committing
human rights abuses in Kashmir.
China
China’s policy toward Kashmir has traditionally favored Pakistan. In the years after independence,
Pakistan sought stronger ties with China in order to balance India. In 1957, Pakistan ceded a small
part of its territory in Kashmir to China as a goodwill gesture. Pakistan supported China during its
1962 border war with India. China has provided Pakistan with a significant amount of weaponry,
including key components of nuclear weapons. However, in recent years, as relations between
India and China have improved, China has taken a more neutral stance toward the conflict. China
has encouraged both sides to solve their differences peacefully and to exercise restraint. In its
view, the only way to solve the conflict is through bilateral negotiation between India and
Pakistan. China did not offer Pakistan its support during the Kargil conflict in 1999. Although
India still claims Aksai Chin (Chinese-administered Kashmir) as its territory, both sides consider the
Line of Mutual Control, which was created after the 1962 Sino-Indian Border War, the de facto
international border.
Kashmir Separatist and Independence Movements
Some Kashmiris believe that Kashmir should become seeks independence from both India and
Pakistan – a status Kashmir initially had after the British granted independence in 1947.
Supporters of Kashmiri independence point to the fact that Kashmir is larger in geography and
India Review 2017
Page 183 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
population than many members of the U.N. Others, however, fear that Kashmiri independence
could lead to the Balkanization of the subcontinent as other regions seek to break away from India
and Pakistan. After the 2005 earthquake disaster, some Kashmiris expressed anger that a lack of
cooperation between India and Pakistan was slowing relief efforts. The All Parties Hurriyat
Conference (APHC) is the main umbrella group for Kashmiri separatism. It is currently split
between a faction that favors independence and another faction that favors accession to Pakistan.
The APHC has held formal talks with the Indian and Pakistani governments, although its claim to
represent all Kashmiris is disputed. The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front is a secular, nationalist
terrorist group that supports independence and opposes succession to Pakistan. Hindus and
Buddhists generally oppose both independence and secession to Pakistan. Kashmiris on both sides
of the Line of Control believe that any negotiations between India and Pakistan on the issue need
to include a delegation of Kashmiris who represent a diverse spectrum of viewpoints.
Hizbul-Mujahideen
Hizbul-Mujahideen is an Islamist militant group headquartered in Pakistani-administered Kashmir
that is dedicated to Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan (although some members support full
independence). The group allegedly has links to Pakistani intelligence and Pakistan’s largest
Islamist party, which helped found it to challenge the secular orientation of the Jammu Kashmir
Liberation Front. Hizbul-Mujahideen has been designated as a terrorist group by the European
Union (E.U.) and has carried out attacks against Indian civilian and military targets inside Kashmir.
United States
U.S. policy has sought to reduce the risk of war on the subcontinent. The U.S. favors recognizing
the Line of Control as the international border between India and Pakistan. While Pakistan
remains a key U.S. ally in the Global War on Terror, the U.S. has recently sought to establish a
stronger strategic relationship with India. The U.S. has encouraged both countries to continue a
dialogue on the issue of Kashmir and has supported small steps like establishing a bus services that
operates across the Line of Control. During his March 2006 trip to India, President Bush’s only
remarks on the subject of Kashmir encouraged the two countries to negotiate a resolution.
United Kingdom
The U.K. also favors recognizing the Line of Control as the international border.
United Nations
The U.N. has maintained a presence in Kashmir since the beginning of the dispute. In January
1948, the Security Council passed resolution 39, establishing the United Nations Commission for
India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and mediate the dispute. Security Council resolution 47
enlarged the membership of UNCIP. Security Council resolution 91 established the United Nations
India Review 2017
Page 184 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to monitor the cease-fire. UNMOGIP
claims that it has a mandate to observe the 1972 cease-fire established by the Simla agreement.
India disputes this mandate, arguing that UNMOGIP was only set up to monitor the 1949 Karachi
agreement. India has restricted the activities of UNMOGIP monitors on the Indian side of the Line
of Control. Pakistan embraces UNMOGIP’s mandate and has lodged several complaints to
UNMOGIP about alleged Indian violations of the cease-fire. Given the disputed nature of the
mandate, the Secretary-General has taken the position that UNMOGIP’s mandate will end when
the Security Council terminates it. There are currently 43 military observers, who are supported by
22 international civilian personnel and 45 local civilian staff. Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland,
Italy, South Korea, Sweden, and Uruguay contribute military personnel to UNMOGIP.
Update (since 2006):
In early March, 2008, a blast near the Civil Secretariat – Indian-controlled Kashmir's seat of
government and the region's high court -- left close to 20 people injured. Later in the month, a gun
battle between security forces and Islamic militants opposed to Indian rule left five people dead
and two others injured. The incident ensued following a raid on a house by security forces on the
outskirts of the capital city of Srinagar. It was the latest case in an cordon and search effort bt the
Indian Army against Islamic militants in Indian-administered Kashmir.
Also in 2008, the decision by the government of Indian-administered Kashmir to transfer land a
Hindu shrine organization, the Amarnath Shrine Board, provoked angry and violent protests by the
region's Muslim majority. The matter also spurred further acrimony stemming from the
Muslim/Hindu divisions in Kashmir -- a flashpoint for conflict between mainly Hindu India and
mainly Muslim Pakistan. Perhaps realizing that the matter would cause only greater hostility, State
Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said the plans for the forested land would be formally revoked.
That said, the year 2008 marked the lowest number of casualties in Kashmir in 20 years with less
than 90 deaths, according to India's Home Ministry. Human rights groups also noted that the
human rights situation in Kashmir had improved with only one custodial death occurring and no
custodial disappearances.
At the start of 2009, Ahsan Dar -- the founder of terrorism in Kashmir enclave, Hizbul
Mujahideen -- was arrested. This arrest was considered a key development in the fight against
terrorism in the conflict-ridden territory.
March 2009 saw protests take place in Nowhatta, resulting in the deaths of a few people and
the establishment of a curfew. This was followed two months later by mass protests over the rape
and murder cases of two young women in Shopian at the hands allegedly of Indian Armed
Forces. The protests turned violent and police and paramilitaries were accused of opening fire on
India Review 2017
Page 185 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
protestors in Shopian, Baramulla and Srinagar. It was not known how these developments would
affect Indo-Pak relations or efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue.
In the background of the Kashmir issue has been a spate of attacks by Pakistani-based terror
groups, such as Lashkar e Taiba, which has been linked to a number of terror attacks in the United
Kingdom and India. The group has been said that its aspirations in Kashmir are linked with
the broader jihadist efforts. But in January 2009, the terror group publicly declared that it would
support a peaceful resolution in Kashmir.
Note:
On Sept. 13, 2010, violence erupted in Indian-administered Kashmir. Protestors reportedly
gathered to protest the desecration of the Koran in the United States in defiance of curfews. The
demonstrations turned violent as a mob set a government building and a Protestant school ablaze,
and then attacked a police station, while chanting anti-Indian and anti-American slogans. Police
opened fire on the protestors killing at least 18 civilians. As many as 100 others were wounded in
the chaos.
The eruption of violence was not sudden as protests have been ongoing for several months,
originating in June 2010 when a 17-year-old student died after being hit by a tear gas shell during
protests in Srinagar. This manifestation of violence in Muslim-dominated Kashmir appeared to
have been sparked by the controversy in the United States about an American pastor's plans to
burn the Koran on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in that country.
As news filters through to Kashmiris that the American pastor did not actually go through with his
plans to desecrate the Koran, it was possible that the rising tide of anti-American sentiment in
Kashmir could subside. However, antipathy towards India, which has jurisdiction over Muslimdominated Kashmir, was not likely to decrease in the near future. Instead, the fight to wrest control
of Kashmir from India to Pakistan may well be revitalized among militants, effectively refocusing
the main flashpoint on the Indian subcontinent between Indians and Pakistanis for more than five
decades.
Indeed, anti-Indian antagonism was in high gear by September 18, 2010 when protestors defied a
curfew and clashed with police, resulting in several deaths. Almost all of the people killed were
those engaged in clashes with government forces. In one case, local mourners at a funeral claimed
that the government forces opened fire on them, but other reports indicated that some of the
mourners were trying to set fire to the home of a pro-India politician. Regardless of the veracity of
either side's claims, it was apparent that the Kashmir issue was once again emerging as a key
concern on the Indian sub-continent.
India Review 2017
Page 186 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The Recent Politics of Kashmir (2013) -January 2013 saw clashes erupt close to Kashmir's "Line of Control." The clashes resulted in the
deaths of two Indian soldiers as well as two Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan claimed that there had
been "unprovoked" gunfire emanating from Indian troops ahead of the death of one of their
soldiers. In response, the Indian army denied taking any provocative actions. India drew attention
to the killing of two of their soldiers in a Pakistani border attack, as well as the "barbaric"
mutilation of the bodies of the soldiers. For its part, Pakistan denied India's version of the events.
Although both countries initially appeared to be interested in de-escalating the tensions, on Jan. 12,
2013, the Indian military was hinting that it would entertain its options to counter Pakistan's
violation of a prevailing ceasefire at the Line of Control. Indian Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne
said in an interview with the media that although the two countries had mechanisms like the Line
of Control and the 2003 ceasefire agreement in place, "violations with impunity" were
"unacceptable." He continued, "We are watching the situation carefully, if the violations continue,
perhaps we may have to think of some other options for compliance."
Taking an even stronger tone, the Indian army chief, General Bikram Singh, accused Pakistan of
being involved in the planning of the attacks that left two Indian soldiers dead. He characterized the
bloodshed was "pre-meditated, pre-planned activity" and called on Indian troops to be "aggressive
and offensive in the face of provocation and fire" from Pakistan. Moreover, on Jan. 15, 2013,
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed a warning to Pakistan on the matter of
Kashmir, saying it "cannot be business as usual" with Pakistan after the deaths of two Indian
soldiers. He made particular mention of the fact that one soldier was beheaded -- an apparent
reference to the mutilation of the bodies of the soldiers noted above. In addition to the Indian army
chief's warning that "aggressive" consequences would be in the offing, Indian authorities also halted
a planned "visa on arrival" program for some Pakistani citizens.
In the second week of February 2013, violent protests broke out in the Indian-controlled Kashmir,
with more than 35 people -- including 23 policemen -- injured as a result. The eruption of violence
appeared to be in response to the execution of Mohammed Afzal Guru, who was convicted by
Indian authorities for his involvement in the 201 terrorist attack on the Indian House of
Parliament. That attack was linked to two Pakistan-based terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and
Jaish-e-Mohammad, with control over contested Kashmir at the center of their grievances. Guru
was sentenced to death in 2004 by the Indian Supreme Court for his role in that attack that
audacious attack on the Indian parliament. The death sentence was set to be carried out in 2006,
however, it was delayed following a mercy petition by Guru's wife. Now, in 2013, the execution
had taken place, evidently sparking the anger of some in the disputed territory of Kashmir.
Special Note on Kashmir (2014) -India Review 2017
Page 187 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
In the first part of October 2014, intense fighting broke out between Pakistani and Indian forces in
the Indian-controlled region of Kashmir in the Himalayas. The clashes began at the start of
October 2014 and lasted more than a week, with nine Pakistani and eight Indian civilians being
killed in the crossfire of violence between the two sides. At least 18,000 Indian nationals fled the
area of Jammu to escape the violence, and claimed they were enduring harsh conditions at relief
camps as they waited for the fighting to end.
While Kashmir is legally under Indian jurisdiction, it is home to a mostly Muslim population and
claimed by Pakistan. For years, it has been the source of an intractable flashpoint between the two
countries, even leading to war at times. Sporadic exchanges of gun fire and even clashes erupt
despite a ceasefire that has remained mostly in tact since 2003; however, heavy fighting that leads
to the deaths of civilians, of the type experienced in October 2014 can be regarded as a relative
rarity.
India blamed Pakistan for the fighting in October 2014, saying that its own forces had retaliated to
machine gun fire and mortar attacks on various positions along the border. Throughout, India has
placed the responsibility for eruptions of fighting along the border on Pakistani troops, saying that
they have offered cover to separatists, militants, and extremists as they violated the border and
entered India's territory -- potentially with an eye on carrying out terrorist attacks in India. Indeed,
there have been no shortage of terror attacks by Pakistani Islamic terrorists on India over the issue
of Kashmir. One of the most significant was the storming of the Indian parliament in 2001 by
Pakistani Islamic extremists from Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad -- both known
Pakistani terrorist groups with aspirations in Kashmir. For its part, Pakistan typically downplays its
role as a center and venue for Islamic terrorists (facts to the contrary notwithstanding) and
normally accuses India of inflating its claims that Pakistanis are violating the border and plotting
attacks on Indian territory.
Returning to the volatile conditions in October 2014 in Kashmir, Indian authorities expressed
concern over the eruption of violence and urged a resolution. In an interview with the media, Arup
Raha, the Air Chief Marshall of the Indian Air Force said: "We are all concerned and want an early
solution to it [the clashes]." He continued, "We don't want to let the issue become serious."
In the background of these developments in Kashmir were the political dynamics in the respective
capitals of New Delhi and Islamabad.
In the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was dealing with oppostion
protests and an ineffective policy of dealing with Islamist terrorists, such as the Taliban. A
weakened Sharif became dependent on the Pakistani military to hold onto power, and thus has had
to concede his own predilections in favor of the military's stance towards India. That stance was
not particularly hospitable to the notion of reconciliation with India.
India Review 2017
Page 188 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Meanwhile, in the Indian capital of New Delhi, newly-elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi,
whose history of hardline positions against Muslims earned him both praise and condemnations,
was riding high in a wave of popular support. As a known Hindu nationalist, he would likely be
allowed a great deal of latitude in dealing with Pakistani aggression. Modi's tougher stances with
Pakistan were illustrated by his decisions to cancel talks with Pakistan and not meet with Nawaz
during meetings of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2014.
Editor's Note on Kashmir
Kashmir has been a flashpoint for several decades. A fiercely disputed territory, Kashmir is legally
administered by India, but claimed by Pakistan. The dispute has resulted in conflicted conditions
on the Indian sub-continent, which have frequently resulted in armed conflict. Although a final
status agreement has yet to be reached, the "Line of Control" that separates Indian-controlled
Kashmir from Pakistani territory serves as the de facto international border between the two
countries. The geopolitical importance of the dispute has been confounded by both sides’
acquisition of nuclear weapons in 1998. In recent years, India has accused Pakistan of backing
militants that have attacked civilian and military targets inside Indian-controlled Kashmir. Indeed,
groups such as Lashkar e Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen have carried out terrorist attacks with an
eye on ultimately taking control of Kashmir. The group has been said that its aspirations in
Kashmir are linked with the broader jihadist efforts. Despite not being able to comprehensively
resolve the conflict, India and Pakistan have made some progress in recent years in agreeing to
establish transportation links such as a bus service across the "Line of Control," and more recently,
the easing of visa restrictions. But the clashes in early 2013, particularly punctuated by the brutal
killings of two Indian soldiers, resulted in India's decision to halt plans for a "visa on demand"
program. The eruption of violence along the border in 2014 was not expected to improve the
situation. Indeed, the political conditions in the respective capitals of New Delhi and Islamabad
were not conducive to reconciliation. Instead, the leadership in India and Pakistan were more
likely to stake out hard line -- and nationalistic -- positions, with neither side likely willing to cede
ground.
Sources: BBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, International Crisis Group, MIPT
Terrorism Knowledge Base, Center for Strategic and International Studies, United Nations
Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan.
India Review 2017
Page 189 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
India Review 2017
Page 190 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Chapter 3
Economic Overview
India Review 2017
Page 191 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Economic Overview
Overview
India is the world's second most populous country and one of the fastest growing economies.
While India has a diverse economy, the agricultural sector, including forestry and fishing, still
accounts for around 17 percent of GDP and employs about 60 percent of the labor force. The
services sector is now the most dynamic sector, accounting for over 50 percent of GDP, with
telecommunications and information technology registering particularly rapid growth. India's large,
skilled workforce makes it a popular choice for international companies seeking to outsource work,
and there also has been a manufacturing boom in recent years driven by the efficient use of
technology.
In recent years, sound macroeconomic policies and steady structural reforms have resulted in
India’s impressive economic performance and its success in reducing poverty. While economic
growth slowed as a result of the global crisis, India’s economy was one of the first in the world to
recover supported by sound policies and the government’s decisive actions, including prompt fiscal
and monetary easing. Capital inflows are rising, and financial markets have regained most of their
lost ground. Moreover, India was not at the center of the global crisis, and growth is well balanced
and mainly reliant on domestic drivers. In 2010, the Indian economy strongly rebounded from the
global financial crisis - in large part because of strong domestic demand. As an indicator of growth,
merchandise exports, which make up about 15 percent of GDP, returned in 2010 to pre-financial
crisis levels. Following a return of normal rainfall patterns, the agricultural sector also enjoyed a
sharp rebound. As fiscal stimulus continues to be withdrawn, a pick-up in consumption spending,
helped by the recovery in farm incomes, and robust business investment were expected to be the
mainstays of growth. In a controversial move, the Indian government in May 2011 said it would
end a tax break for Indian exporters. This drew the ire from manufacturers, especially automakers.
Overall, India's economic growth in 2011 slowed because of persistently high inflation and interest
rates and little progress on economic reforms largely due to corruption scandals that hindered
legislative work. High international crude prices have exacerbated the government's fuel subsidy
expenditures contributing to a higher fiscal deficit, and a worsening current account deficit. As
such, the rupee depreciated the most among major Asian currencies in 2011.
By 2012, it was clear that the government’s poor policy choices in the midst of a deteriorating
external environment had only weakened the investment climate. India’s growth slumped to its
lowest in nine years in the first quarter of 2012 due to a slowdown in manufacturing. Meanwhile,
inflation inched up in May 2012 after showing signs of declining in April and the rupee slid to a
India Review 2017
Page 192 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
record low versus the dollar. In June 2012, the central bank defied widespread calls to cut interest
rates and boost growth, instead choosing to leave rates on hold, and put the onus on the
government to pull the economy out of its slump. Also in June 2012, India's biggest commercial
vehicle maker, Tata Motors, said it would halt production at one of its factories in yet another sign
of slowing growth. In late 2012, the Indian government announced additional reforms and deficit
reduction measures in an effort to reverse India's slowdown, including allowing higher levels of
foreign participation in direct investment in the economy.
By early 2013, it was clear that although India’s economic growth remained one of the highest in
the world, it had slowed markedly and inflation remained elevated. The slowdown was mainly due
to structural and supply-side factors, with cyclical and global factors also contributing. The current
account deficit widened in 2011-12, causing the rupee to depreciate sharply before stabilizing. The
financial positions of banks and corporates, both strong before 2009, had deteriorated. Inflation
was forecasted to remain above the Reserve Bank of India’s comfort zone given that supply
constraints were likely to ease only gradually.
In October 2013, India’s government unveiled plans to launch trading of government bond futures
by year’s end as part of its continued efforts to deepen its financial markets. India has active
derivatives markets in currencies and equities but has struggled to develop liquidity in debt
derivatives, depriving banks and other financial firms of a hedging opportunity. Meanwhile, India’s
Housing Development Finance Corp Ltd (HDFC) recorded a 10 percent increase in net profit for
the July-September quarter. The country’s top mortgage lender was counting on higher demand in
smaller cities to give the slowing economy a boost despite rising inflation and high interest rates.
“Our lending is more to middle-income people, more in the outskirts of big cities, or in tier 2 and
tier 3 cities where the growth is still reasonably good,” HDFC's chief executive officer, Keki
Mistry, told Reuters. Overall, however, the country’s economy was still growing at its slowest pace
in a decade.
Growth in 2013 fell to a decade low, as India's economic leaders struggled to improve the country's
wide fiscal and current account deficits. Rising macroeconomic imbalances in India and improving
economic conditions in Western countries led investors to shift capital away from India, prompting
a sharp depreciation of the rupee. However, investors' perceptions of India improved in early 2014,
due to a reduction of the current account deficit and expectations of post-election economic reform
resulting in a surge of inbound capital flows and stabilization of the rupee, according to the CIA
World Factbook.
In late August 2014, the Indian government pledged to tighten up risk management at the country's
dominant state banks. Bad loans had surged to 4.1 percent of gross advances in March 2014
compared to March 2011, the Reserve Bank of India said in its annual report. Finance Secretary
Arvind Mayaram also said in late August 2014 that growth was on course to recover to about 5.8
percent in the year to March 2015, up from 2013 - the second year of growth below 5 percent.
Industrial production was robust, infrastructure output growth was at a nine-month high and
India Review 2017
Page 193 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
manufacturing activity was growing at its fastest rate in 17 months. Car sales were also on the rise.
Growth in 2014 fell to another decade low, as India's economic leaders struggled to improve the
country's wide fiscal and current account deficits. Rising macroeconomic imbalances in India, and
improving economic conditions in Western countries, led investors to shift capital away from India,
prompting a sharp depreciation of the rupee. However, investors' perceptions of India improved in
early 2014, due to a reduction of the current account deficit and expectations of post-election
economic reform, resulting in a surge of inbound capital flows and stabilization of the rupee.
In September 2015, Reserve Bank of India cut its policy interest rate to a four-and-a-half low of
6.75 percent. RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan said one of the most important factors behind the
country’s bigger-than-expected 50 basis points interest rate cut was slowing global economic
growth, according to Reuters.
Meanwhile, in October 2015, the IMF said that prospects for India remained favorable despite a
slowdown in the global economy, but that the government should accelerate structural reforms and
relax supply constraints in the energy, mining, and power sectors. It also said India should reform
taxes and trim subsidies to narrow its budget deficit. The IMF also lowered India’s growth forecast
to 7.3 percent for the year, from its earlier estimate of 7.5 percent.
“India is still a bright spot but that's partly because the other emerging markets are not so bright,”
Thomas Richardson, the IMF's resident representative in India, told Reuters as the Fund released
its latest World Economic Outlook.
Growth rebounded in 2014 and 2015, with both years exceeding 7 percent. Despite a high growth
rate compared to the rest of the world, India’s government-owned banks in 2015 faced mounting
bad debt, resulting in low credit growth and restrained economic growth.
In late August 2016, CNN Money reported that India's breakneck growth rate had slowed, but not
enough to cost it the title of world's fastest-growing big economy. Gross domestic product growth
dipped to 7.1 percent in the quarter ended June, a disappointing performance but one that was still
higher than the 6.7 percent posted by China in its most recent quarter.
Unease in the country continued to mount over the pace of economic reforms, leadership at the
central bank, and intractable problems that politicians seem unable to tame: corruption,
bureaucracy and onerous regulation. Shilan Shah, an economist at Capital Economics, told CNN
Money that growth was "almost certainly weaker" than official statistics indicated, and more like
5.5 percent or 6 percent in the quarter. On the positive side, a hike in wages for nearly 10 million
federal government employees and pensioners was expected to fuel spending.
Updated in 2016
India Review 2017
Page 194 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Supplementary Sources: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, CNN
Money, International Monetary Fund and Reuters
Real GDP and GDP Per Capita
Real GDP and GDP Per Capita
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2008
44163.500000
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2009
47801.790000
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2010
52823.860000
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2011
88320.115262
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2012
92807.869320
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
3.890968
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
8.238228
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
10.259963
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
6.638389
India Review 2017
Page 195 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
5.081236
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
32579.450000
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
37081.360000
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
43905.530000
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
49775.799113
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
59385.505155
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
6153.330000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
7742.720000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
8901.360000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
9872.200000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
10931.300000
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
19313.800000
India Review 2017
Page 196 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
23636.700000
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
26805.780000
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
34388.346149
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
36255.802280
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2008
13287.650000
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2009
13000.340000
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2010
375.351687
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2011
447.384314
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2012
448.400412
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2008
16140.400000
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2009
16469.360000
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2010
449.972181
India Review 2017
Page 197 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2011
566.667614
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2012
571.306471
Page 198 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Nominal GDP and Components
Nominal GDP and Components
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2008
56300.630000
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2009
64573.520000
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2010
77841.150000
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2011
88320.115262
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2012
99885.397435
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
12.892749
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
14.694133
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
20.165519
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
13.461993
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
13.094731
Population, total (million)
Millions
2008
1190.870000
Population, total (million)
Millions
2009
1207.750000
Population, total (million)
Millions
2010
1205.624648
Population, total (million)
Millions
2011
1217.438000
India Review 2017
Page 199 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Population, total (million)
Millions
2012
1243.000000
Population growth (%)
%
2008
1.428626
Population growth (%)
%
2009
1.407235
Population growth (%)
%
2010
1.301242
Population growth (%)
%
2011
1.872286
Population growth (%)
%
2012
2.099655
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2008
47.280000
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2009
53.470000
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2010
1.417066
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2011
72545.883455
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2012
80358.324565
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2008
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2009
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2010
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2011
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2012
India Review 2017
Page 200 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Government Spending and Taxation
Government Spending and Taxation
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
6153.330000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
7742.720000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
8901.360000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
9872.200000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
10931.300000
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
27.096851
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
12.461261
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
5.771594
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
13.381202
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
12.924645
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2008
12.494620
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2009
11.399967
India Review 2017
Page 201 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2010
8.021631
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2011
19.082436
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2012
19.725961
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2008
7034.550000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2009
7361.360000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2010
6244.130000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2011
16853.630000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2012
19703.355000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
-2743.320000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
-3376.520000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
2657.230000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
-7172.924000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
-7428.546000
India Review 2017
Page 202 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2008
5.770000
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2009
5.017000
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2010
-3.413657
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2011
-8.121506
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2012
-7.437069
India Review 2017
Page 203 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Money, Prices and Interest Rates
Money, Prices and Interest Rates
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2008
42664.630000
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2009
50342.490000
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2010
59304.543000
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2011
68874.866612
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2012
76482.575453
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
20.495209
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
17.995839
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
17.802177
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
16.137589
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
11.045696
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2008
0.022113
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2009
0.010634
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2010
8.983819
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2011
6.398825
India Review 2017
Page 204 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2012
7.626000
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2008
13.312500
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2009
12.187500
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2010
8.333350
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2011
10.166666
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2012
10.604166
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2008
10.000000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2009
10.000000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2010
3.500000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2011
2.250000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2012
2.500000
India Review 2017
Page 205 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Trade and the Exchange Rate
Trade and the Exchange Rate
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2008
43.510000
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2009
48.410000
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2010
45.562416
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2011
47.921461
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2012
54.409115
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2008
-2852.750000
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2009
-3469.020000
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2010
-74.620493
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2011
-119.283299
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2012
-122.906058
India Review 2017
Page 206 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The Balance of Payments
The Balance of Payments
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Current Account
$US Billions
2008
-30.980000
Current Account
$US Billions
2009
-25.930000
Current Account
$US Billions
2010
-51.790000
Current Account
$US Billions
2011
-4.650000
Current Account
$US Billions
2012
-67.250000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2008
11.410000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2009
43.690000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2010
61.880000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2011
0.660000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2012
341.150000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2008
-19.570000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2009
17.770000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2010
10.100000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2011
-4.000000
India Review 2017
Page 207 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2012
273.910000
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2008
247.420000
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2009
265.190000
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2010
300.480145
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2011
298.739485
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2012
300.425518
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2008
-0.001264
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2009
-0.000829
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2010
-0.001475
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2011
-0.000112
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2012
-0.066325
India Review 2017
Page 208 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Real GDP and GDP Per Capita
Real GDP and GDP Per Capita
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2008
44163.500000
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2009
47801.790000
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2010
52823.860000
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2011
88320.115262
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2012
92807.869320
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
3.890968
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
8.238228
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
10.259963
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
6.638389
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
5.081236
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
32579.450000
India Review 2017
Page 209 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
37081.360000
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
43905.530000
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
49775.799113
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
59385.505155
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
6153.330000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
7742.720000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
8901.360000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
9872.200000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
10931.300000
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
19313.800000
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
23636.700000
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
26805.780000
India Review 2017
Page 210 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
34388.346149
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
36255.802280
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2008
13287.650000
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2009
13000.340000
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2010
375.351687
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2011
447.384314
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2012
448.400412
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2008
16140.400000
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2009
16469.360000
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2010
449.972181
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2011
566.667614
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2012
571.306471
India Review 2017
Page 211 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Nominal GDP and Components
Nominal GDP and Components
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2008
56300.630000
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2009
64573.520000
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2010
77841.150000
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2011
88320.115262
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2012
99885.397435
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
12.892749
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
14.694133
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
20.165519
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
13.461993
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
13.094731
Population, total (million)
Millions
2008
1190.870000
Population, total (million)
Millions
2009
1207.750000
Population, total (million)
Millions
2010
1205.624648
Population, total (million)
Millions
2011
1217.438000
India Review 2017
Page 212 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Population, total (million)
Millions
2012
1243.000000
Population growth (%)
%
2008
1.428626
Population growth (%)
%
2009
1.407235
Population growth (%)
%
2010
1.301242
Population growth (%)
%
2011
1.872286
Population growth (%)
%
2012
2.099655
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2008
47.280000
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2009
53.470000
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2010
1.417066
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2011
72545.883455
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2012
80358.324565
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2008
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2009
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2010
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2011
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2012
India Review 2017
Page 213 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Government Spending and Taxation
Government Spending and Taxation
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
6153.330000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
7742.720000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
8901.360000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
9872.200000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
10931.300000
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
27.096851
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
12.461261
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
5.771594
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
13.381202
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
12.924645
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2008
12.494620
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2009
11.399967
India Review 2017
Page 214 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2010
8.021631
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2011
19.082436
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2012
19.725961
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2008
7034.550000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2009
7361.360000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2010
6244.130000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2011
16853.630000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2012
19703.355000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
-2743.320000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
-3376.520000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
2657.230000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
-7172.924000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
-7428.546000
India Review 2017
Page 215 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2008
5.770000
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2009
5.017000
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2010
-3.413657
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2011
-8.121506
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2012
-7.437069
India Review 2017
Page 216 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Money, Prices and Interest Rates
Money, Prices and Interest Rates
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2008
42664.630000
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2009
50342.490000
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2010
59304.543000
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2011
68874.866612
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2012
76482.575453
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
20.495209
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
17.995839
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
17.802177
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
16.137589
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
11.045696
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2008
0.022113
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2009
0.010634
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2010
8.983819
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2011
6.398825
India Review 2017
Page 217 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2012
7.626000
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2008
13.312500
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2009
12.187500
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2010
8.333350
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2011
10.166666
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2012
10.604166
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2008
10.000000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2009
10.000000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2010
3.500000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2011
2.250000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2012
2.500000
India Review 2017
Page 218 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Trade and the Exchange Rate
Trade and the Exchange Rate
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2008
43.510000
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2009
48.410000
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2010
45.562416
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2011
47.921461
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2012
54.409115
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2008
-2852.750000
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2009
-3469.020000
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2010
-74.620493
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2011
-119.283299
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2012
-122.906058
India Review 2017
Page 219 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The Balance of Payments
The Balance of Payments
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Current Account
$US Billions
2008
-30.980000
Current Account
$US Billions
2009
-25.930000
Current Account
$US Billions
2010
-51.790000
Current Account
$US Billions
2011
-4.650000
Current Account
$US Billions
2012
-67.250000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2008
11.410000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2009
43.690000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2010
61.880000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2011
0.660000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2012
341.150000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2008
-19.570000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2009
17.770000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2010
10.100000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2011
-4.000000
India Review 2017
Page 220 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2012
273.910000
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2008
247.420000
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2009
265.190000
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2010
300.480145
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2011
298.739485
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2012
300.425518
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2008
-0.001264
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2009
-0.000829
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2010
-0.001475
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2011
-0.000112
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2012
-0.066325
India Review 2017
Page 221 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Real GDP and GDP Per Capita
Real GDP and GDP Per Capita
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2008
44163.500000
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2009
47801.790000
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2010
52823.860000
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2011
88320.115262
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2012
92807.869320
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
3.890968
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
8.238228
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
10.259963
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
6.638389
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
5.081236
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
32579.450000
India Review 2017
Page 222 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
37081.360000
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
43905.530000
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
49775.799113
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
59385.505155
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
6153.330000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
7742.720000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
8901.360000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
9872.200000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
10931.300000
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
19313.800000
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
23636.700000
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
26805.780000
India Review 2017
Page 223 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
34388.346149
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
36255.802280
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2008
13287.650000
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2009
13000.340000
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2010
375.351687
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2011
447.384314
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2012
448.400412
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2008
16140.400000
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2009
16469.360000
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2010
449.972181
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2011
566.667614
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2012
571.306471
India Review 2017
Page 224 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Nominal GDP and Components
Nominal GDP and Components
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2008
56300.630000
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2009
64573.520000
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2010
77841.150000
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2011
88320.115262
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2012
99885.397435
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
12.892749
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
14.694133
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
20.165519
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
13.461993
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
13.094731
Population, total (million)
Millions
2008
1190.870000
Population, total (million)
Millions
2009
1207.750000
Population, total (million)
Millions
2010
1205.624648
Population, total (million)
Millions
2011
1217.438000
India Review 2017
Page 225 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Population, total (million)
Millions
2012
1243.000000
Population growth (%)
%
2008
1.428626
Population growth (%)
%
2009
1.407235
Population growth (%)
%
2010
1.301242
Population growth (%)
%
2011
1.872286
Population growth (%)
%
2012
2.099655
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2008
47.280000
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2009
53.470000
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2010
1.417066
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2011
72545.883455
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2012
80358.324565
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2008
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2009
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2010
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2011
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2012
India Review 2017
Page 226 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Government Spending and Taxation
Government Spending and Taxation
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
6153.330000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
7742.720000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
8901.360000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
9872.200000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
10931.300000
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
27.096851
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
12.461261
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
5.771594
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
13.381202
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
12.924645
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2008
12.494620
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2009
11.399967
India Review 2017
Page 227 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2010
8.021631
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2011
19.082436
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2012
19.725961
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2008
7034.550000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2009
7361.360000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2010
6244.130000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2011
16853.630000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2012
19703.355000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
-2743.320000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
-3376.520000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
2657.230000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
-7172.924000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
-7428.546000
India Review 2017
Page 228 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2008
5.770000
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2009
5.017000
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2010
-3.413657
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2011
-8.121506
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2012
-7.437069
India Review 2017
Page 229 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Money, Prices and Interest Rates
Money, Prices and Interest Rates
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2008
42664.630000
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2009
50342.490000
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2010
59304.543000
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2011
68874.866612
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2012
76482.575453
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
20.495209
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
17.995839
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
17.802177
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
16.137589
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
11.045696
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2008
0.022113
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2009
0.010634
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2010
8.983819
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2011
6.398825
India Review 2017
Page 230 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2012
7.626000
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2008
13.312500
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2009
12.187500
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2010
8.333350
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2011
10.166666
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2012
10.604166
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2008
10.000000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2009
10.000000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2010
3.500000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2011
2.250000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2012
2.500000
India Review 2017
Page 231 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Trade and the Exchange Rate
Trade and the Exchange Rate
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2008
43.510000
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2009
48.410000
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2010
45.562416
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2011
47.921461
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2012
54.409115
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2008
-2852.750000
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2009
-3469.020000
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2010
-74.620493
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2011
-119.283299
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2012
-122.906058
India Review 2017
Page 232 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The Balance of Payments
The Balance of Payments
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Current Account
$US Billions
2008
-30.980000
Current Account
$US Billions
2009
-25.930000
Current Account
$US Billions
2010
-51.790000
Current Account
$US Billions
2011
-4.650000
Current Account
$US Billions
2012
-67.250000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2008
11.410000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2009
43.690000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2010
61.880000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2011
0.660000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2012
341.150000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2008
-19.570000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2009
17.770000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2010
10.100000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2011
-4.000000
India Review 2017
Page 233 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2012
273.910000
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2008
247.420000
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2009
265.190000
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2010
300.480145
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2011
298.739485
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2012
300.425518
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2008
-0.001264
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2009
-0.000829
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2010
-0.001475
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2011
-0.000112
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2012
-0.066325
India Review 2017
Page 234 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Real GDP and GDP Per Capita
Real GDP and GDP Per Capita
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2008
44163.500000
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2009
47801.790000
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2010
52823.860000
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2011
88320.115262
Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
Rs
billions
2012
92807.869320
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
3.890968
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
8.238228
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
10.259963
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
6.638389
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
5.081236
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
32579.450000
India Review 2017
Page 235 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
37081.360000
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
43905.530000
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
49775.799113
Consumption (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
59385.505155
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
6153.330000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
7742.720000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
8901.360000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
9872.200000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
10931.300000
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
19313.800000
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
23636.700000
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
26805.780000
India Review 2017
Page 236 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
34388.346149
Gross Capital Formation (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
36255.802280
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2008
13287.650000
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2009
13000.340000
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2010
375.351687
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2011
447.384314
Exports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2012
448.400412
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2008
16140.400000
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2009
16469.360000
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2010
449.972181
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2011
566.667614
Imports ($US billions)
Rs
billions
2012
571.306471
India Review 2017
Page 237 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Nominal GDP and Components
Nominal GDP and Components
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2008
56300.630000
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2009
64573.520000
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2010
77841.150000
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2011
88320.115262
Nominal GDP (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2012
99885.397435
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
12.892749
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
14.694133
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
20.165519
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
13.461993
Nominal GDP Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
13.094731
Population, total (million)
Millions
2008
1190.870000
Population, total (million)
Millions
2009
1207.750000
Population, total (million)
Millions
2010
1205.624648
Population, total (million)
Millions
2011
1217.438000
India Review 2017
Page 238 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Population, total (million)
Millions
2012
1243.000000
Population growth (%)
%
2008
1.428626
Population growth (%)
%
2009
1.407235
Population growth (%)
%
2010
1.301242
Population growth (%)
%
2011
1.872286
Population growth (%)
%
2012
2.099655
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2008
47.280000
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2009
53.470000
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2010
1.417066
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2011
72545.883455
Nominal GDP per Capita (LCU 1000s)
Rs thousands
2012
80358.324565
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2008
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2009
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2010
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2011
Nominal GDP Per Capita Growth Rate
%
2012
India Review 2017
Page 239 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Government Spending and Taxation
Government Spending and Taxation
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
6153.330000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
7742.720000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
8901.360000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
9872.200000
Government Expenditure (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
10931.300000
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
27.096851
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
12.461261
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
5.771594
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
13.381202
Government Expenditure Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
12.924645
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2008
12.494620
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2009
11.399967
India Review 2017
Page 240 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2010
8.021631
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2011
19.082436
National Tax Rate Net of Transfers (%)
%
2012
19.725961
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2008
7034.550000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2009
7361.360000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2010
6244.130000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2011
16853.630000
Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
2012
19703.355000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2008
-2743.320000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2009
-3376.520000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2010
2657.230000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2011
-7172.924000
Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
Rs
billions
2012
-7428.546000
India Review 2017
Page 241 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2008
5.770000
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2009
5.017000
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2010
-3.413657
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2011
-8.121506
Government Surplus(+) Deficit(-) (%GDP)
%
2012
-7.437069
India Review 2017
Page 242 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Money, Prices and Interest Rates
Money, Prices and Interest Rates
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2008
42664.630000
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2009
50342.490000
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2010
59304.543000
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2011
68874.866612
Money and Quasi-Money (M2) (LCU billions)
Rs billions
2012
76482.575453
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2008
20.495209
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2009
17.995839
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2010
17.802177
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2011
16.137589
Money Supply Growth Rate (%)
%
2012
11.045696
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2008
0.022113
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2009
0.010634
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2010
8.983819
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2011
6.398825
India Review 2017
Page 243 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
%
2012
7.626000
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2008
13.312500
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2009
12.187500
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2010
8.333350
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2011
10.166666
Lending Interest Rate (%)
%
2012
10.604166
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2008
10.000000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2009
10.000000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2010
3.500000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2011
2.250000
Unemployment Rate (%)
%
2012
2.500000
India Review 2017
Page 244 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Trade and the Exchange Rate
Trade and the Exchange Rate
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2008
43.510000
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2009
48.410000
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2010
45.562416
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2011
47.921461
Official Exchange Rate (LCU/$US)
Rs/$
2012
54.409115
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2008
-2852.750000
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2009
-3469.020000
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2010
-74.620493
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2011
-119.283299
Trade Balance NIPA ($US billions)
$US Millions
2012
-122.906058
India Review 2017
Page 245 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The Balance of Payments
The Balance of Payments
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Current Account
$US Billions
2008
-30.980000
Current Account
$US Billions
2009
-25.930000
Current Account
$US Billions
2010
-51.790000
Current Account
$US Billions
2011
-4.650000
Current Account
$US Billions
2012
-67.250000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2008
11.410000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2009
43.690000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2010
61.880000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2011
0.660000
Capital and Financial Account
$US Billions
2012
341.150000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2008
-19.570000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2009
17.770000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2010
10.100000
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2011
-4.000000
India Review 2017
Page 246 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Name
Unit
Year
Value
Overall Balance
$US Billions
2012
273.910000
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2008
247.420000
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2009
265.190000
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2010
300.480145
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2011
298.739485
Total Foreign Exchange Reserves ($US billions)
$US Billions
2012
300.425518
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2008
-0.001264
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2009
-0.000829
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2010
-0.001475
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2011
-0.000112
Current Account (% of GDP)
%
2012
-0.066325
India Review 2017
Page 247 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Economic Performance Index
Economic Performance Index
The Economic Performance rankings are calculated by CountryWatch's editorial team, and are
based on criteria including sustained economic growth, monetary stability, current account deficits,
budget surplus, unemployment and structural imbalances. Scores are assessed from 0 to 100 using
this aforementioned criteria as well as CountryWatch's proprietary economic research data and
models.
Bank
stability
risk
Monetary/
Currency
stability
Government
Finances
Empl./
Unempl.
Econ.GNP
growth or
decline/
forecast
0 - 100
0 - 100
0 - 100
0 - 100
%
North Americas
Canada
92
69
35
38
3.14%
United States
94
76
4
29
3.01%
Austria
90
27
30
63
1.33%
Belgium
88
27
19
23
1.15%
Cyprus
81
91
16
80
-0.69%
Denmark
97
70
45
78
1.20%
Finland
89
27
41
33
1.25%
Western Europe
India Review 2017
Page 248 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
France
87
27
18
27
1.52%
Germany
86
27
22
21
1.25%
Greece
79
27
5
24
-2.00%
Iceland
90
17
2
34
-3.04%
Italy
85
27
37
24
0.84%
Ireland
92
27
11
10
-1.55%
Luxembourg
99
27
28
66
2.08%
Malta
77
27
41
51
0.54%
Netherlands
91
27
26
74
1.30%
Norway
98
44
10
76
1.08%
Portugal
77
27
13
20
0.29%
Spain
83
27
9
3
-0.41%
Sweden
94
72
54
32
1.23%
Switzerland
97
86
55
77
1.53%
United Kingdom
85
12
9
37
1.34%
Albania
44
60
33
6
2.30%
Armenia
45
59
49
30
1.80%
Central and
Eastern Europe
India Review 2017
Page 249 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Azerbaijan
56
4
84
99
2.68%
Belarus
59
21
83
98
2.41%
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
34
68
69
N/A
0.50%
Bulgaria
58
75
88
49
0.20%
Croatia
69
68
94
9
0.18%
Czech Republic
80
89
29
70
1.67%
Estonia
72
90
66
92
0.80%
Georgia
36
60
53
56
2.00%
Hungary
70
66
26
54
-0.16%
Latvia
67
100
65
44
-3.97%
Lithuania
65
91
87
79
-1.65%
Macedonia (FYR)
53
69
56
2
2.03%
Moldova
23
36
81
67
2.50%
Poland
74
74
38
12
2.72%
Romania
62
56
70
62
0.75%
Russia
73
18
90
8
4.00%
Serbia
48
49
52
5
1.97%
India Review 2017
Page 250 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Montenegro
39
27
73
1
-1.70%
Slovak Republic
80
62
30
14
4.06%
Slovenia
81
27
36
65
1.12%
Ukraine
41
11
57
N/A
3.68%
Algeria
57
18
96
7
4.55%
Angola
49
1
97
N/A
7.05%
Benin
19
91
20
N/A
3.22%
Botswana
68
58
76
N/A
6.33%
Burkina Faso
16
91
13
N/A
4.41%
Burundi
2
91
6
N/A
3.85%
Cameroon
26
91
91
N/A
2.58%
Cape Verde
52
87
4
N/A
4.96%
Central African
Republic
9
91
32
N/A
3.18%
Chad
22
91
89
N/A
4.42%
Congo
52
87
87
N/A
12.13%
Côte d’Ivoire
25
91
82
28
2.98%
Africa
Dem. Republic
India Review 2017
Page 251 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Congo
4
91
47
N/A
5.44%
Djibouti
31
76
50
N/A
4.47%
Egypt
37
20
24
69
5.01%
Equatorial Guinea
82
91
85
N/A
0.94%
Eritrea
1
3
1
18
1.81%
Ethiopia
6
45
8
N/A
6.96%
Gabon
64
91
96
N/A
5.36%
Gambia
8
48
86
N/A
4.82%
Ghana
9
11
69
N/A
4.50%
Guinea
10
7
91
N/A
3.03%
Guinea-Bissau
5
91
46
N/A
3.47%
Kenya
20
41
59
N/A
4.11%
Lesotho
13
40
12
N/A
2.98%
Liberia
12
73
74
N/A
5.92%
Libya
73
2
94
N/A
5.22%
Madagascar
4
22
24
N/A
-1.02%
Malawi
7
25
55
N/A
5.96%
Mali
20
91
82
N/A
5.12%
India Review 2017
Page 252 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Mauritania
15
13
93
N/A
4.58%
Mauritius
65
52
56
55
4.10%
Morocco
37
72
48
26
3.23%
Mozambique
12
23
71
N/A
6.45%
Namibia
40
39
62
N/A
1.70%
Niger
10
91
21
N/A
4.41%
Nigeria
30
6
61
N/A
6.98%
Rwanda
21
40
68
N/A
5.39%
Sao Tome &
Principe
1
61
100
N/A
3.40%
Senegal
24
91
63
N/A
3.44%
Seychelles
60
67
97
N/A
4.01%
Sierra Leone
5
10
39
N/A
4.77%
Somalia
2
38
59
N/A
3.19%
South Africa
61
37
70
N/A
2.59%
Sudan
16
5
73
N/A
5.52%
Swaziland
32
44
79
N/A
1.09%
Tanzania
15
45
32
N/A
6.17%
Togo
8
91
92
N/A
2.56%
India Review 2017
Page 253 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Tunisia
50
61
44
39
4.00%
Uganda
11
17
54
N/A
5.59%
Zambia
29
20
49
N/A
5.84%
Zimbabwe
0
8
16
N/A
2.24%
Argentina
66
3
80
36
3.50%
Belize
47
76
80
N/A
1.00%
Bolivia
32
51
61
81
3.99%
Brazil
71
47
78
11
5.50%
Chile
78
25
92
73
4.72%
Columbia
47
52
34
47
2.25%
Costa Rica
60
42
39
57
3.45%
Ecuador
43
76
75
64
2.51%
El Salvador
35
76
67
N/A
1.04%
Guatemala
46
59
58
N/A
2.52%
Honduras
27
47
58
N/A
2.00%
Mexico
69
42
52
61
4.07%
Nicaragua
23
49
42
N/A
1.75%
South and
Central America
India Review 2017
Page 254 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Panama
66
76
72
45
5.00%
Paraguay
35
46
66
16
5.27%
Peru
59
66
75
22
6.33%
Suriname
58
26
81
59
4.02%
Uruguay
70
26
27
N/A
5.71%
Venezuela
55
1
28
13
-2.63%
Antigua & Barbuda
72
76
15
N/A
-2.01%
Bahamas
74
76
45
87
-0.50%
Barbados
67
76
33
15
-0.50%
Caribbean
Bermuda
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cuba
45
76
18
95
0.25%
Dominica
53
76
65
N/A
1.40%
Dominican Republic
54
39
43
4
3.50%
Grenada
63
76
48
N/A
0.80%
Guyana
28
56
17
N/A
4.36%
Haiti
11
27
89
N/A
-8.50%
Jamaica
42
9
85
19
-0.28%
India Review 2017
Page 255 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
St Lucia
55
76
67
N/A
1.14%
St Vincent &
Grenadines
49
76
95
N/A
0.50%
Trinidad & Tobago
82
37
77
72
2.13%
Bahrain
84
76
62
91
3.48%
Iran
51
19
40
58
3.01%
Iraq
48
9
8
N/A
7.27%
Israel
87
62
12
48
3.20%
Jordan
41
51
3
N/A
4.10%
Kuwait
96
4
99
N/A
3.10%
Lebanon
63
54
2
N/A
6.00%
Oman
76
16
88
N/A
4.71%
Qatar
99
16
83
N/A
18.54%
Saudi Arabia
76
8
98
N/A
3.70%
Syria
61
24
40
N/A
5.00%
Turkey
75
23
27
60
5.20%
United Arab
Emirates
96
24
98
94
1.29%
Middle East
India Review 2017
Page 256 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Yemen
Pending
28
2
78
N/A
7.78%
Afghanistan
17
70
74
N/A
8.64%
Bangladesh
13
43
25
N/A
5.38%
Bhutan
24
55
5
N/A
6.85%
Brunei
78
19
99
75
0.48%
Cambodia
18
67
42
N/A
4.77%
China
54
90
19
68
11.03%
Hong Kong
89
76
14
82
5.02%
India
31
38
34
35
8.78%
Indonesia
42
46
37
31
6.00%
Japan
88
89
6
71
1.90%
Kazakhstan
62
13
76
42
2.40%
Korea North
18
65
23
N/A
1.50%
Korea South
83
63
22
85
4.44%
Kyrgyz Republic
24
15
84
88
4.61%
Laos
17
54
7
N/A
7.22%
Macao
91
76
14
82
3.00%
Asia
India Review 2017
Page 257 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Malaysia
68
65
44
90
4.72%
Maldives
44
55
17
N/A
3.45%
Mongolia
33
5
77
93
7.22%
Myanmar
3
41
72
N/A
5.26%
Nepal
3
14
25
N/A
2.97%
Pakistan
19
15
31
41
3.00%
Papua New Guinea
75
50
11
N/A
7.96%
Philippines
30
48
53
43
3.63%
Singapore
93
75
63
40
5.68%
Sri Lanka
38
22
10
N/A
5.50%
Taiwan
84
88
35
89
6.50%
Tajikistan
6
6
60
97
4.00%
Thailand
56
64
90
96
5.46%
Turkmenistan
51
53
68
N/A
12.00%
Uzbekistan
40
10
60
100
8.00%
Vietnam
25
12
20
N/A
6.04%
96
63
31
46
2.96%
Pacific
Australia
India Review 2017
Page 258 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Fiji
46
53
3
N/A
2.06%
Marshall Islands
27
76
46
N/A
1.08%
Micronesia (Fed.
States)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
New Caledonia
96
73
51
52
2.00%
New Zealand
98
73
51
52
2.00%
Samoa
34
88
64
N/A
-2.77%
Solomon Islands
14
71
1
N/A
3.36%
Tonga
26
57
38
N/A
0.60%
Vanuatu
33
58
47
N/A
3.80%
Source:
CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com
Updated:
This material was produced in 2010; it is subject to updating in 2012.
India Review 2017
Page 259 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
div style='margin-top:40%;padding-top:40%'>
Chapter 4
Investment Overview
India Review 2017
Page 260 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Foreign Investment Climate
Background
India's diverse economy encompasses traditional village farming, modern agriculture, handicrafts, a
wide range of modern industries, and a multitude of services. Services are the major source of
economic growth, accounting for more than half of India's output with less than one third of its
labor force. Slightly more than half of the work force is in agriculture, leading the United
Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to articulate a rural economic development program that
includes creating basic infrastructure to improve the lives of the rural poor and boost economic
performance. The government has reduced controls on foreign trade and investment. Higher limits
on foreign direct investment were permitted in a few key sectors, such as telecommunications.
However, tariff spikes in sensitive categories, including agriculture, and incremental progress on
economic reforms still hinder foreign access to India's vast and growing market. Privatization of
government-owned industries remains stalled and continues to generate political debate; populist
pressure from within the UPA government had restrained needed initiatives. In the long run, the
huge and growing population is the fundamental social, economic, and environmental problem.
Foreign Investment Assessment
Openness to Foreign Investment
Until the 1990s India had a tightly controlled economy that allowed little foreign investments. From
July 1991 industrial and investment policies have become progressively simpler, more liberal, and
more transparent. Nonetheless, even today, foreign investment remains relatively controlled with
equity limits for investors in many sectors and approval required for many types of foreign
investment. In some of these sectors limits can be exceeded on a case-by-case basis. Sector details
on investment norms follow later.
The current policy has automatic approval for foreign equity investment in many sectors.
Investments in some sectors require approval by either the Foreign Investment Promotion Board
(FIPB) or the Cabinet Committee on Foreign Investment. These bodies have discretionary powers
and the approval process is not always routine or transparent. The rules vary from industry to
industry and are frequently changed, usually to become more liberal. In the majority of cases
foreign investment does not get national treatment.
India Review 2017
Page 261 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Transparency of Regulatory System
India has adequate laws and regulations governing commercial transactions. Central and state
governments regulate the prices of "essential" products, including food grains, sugar, edible oils,
basic medicines, energy, fertilizers, water and many industrial inputs. Many basic food products are
under a dual pricing system-at fixed prices through government distribution outlets, at market
prices on the open market. The Indian government is revising the 1956 Companies Act, which
governs competition laws and commercial practices.
The Indian Parliament in May 2000 passed the Information Technology Bill, 2000 to provide the
legal framework for India's growing e-commerce sector. This legislation covers digital signatures,
electronic records, service obligations, and penalties for hacking and introducing computer viruses.
Labor Force
Total: 482.2 million estimated
By occupation: agriculture 60%, industry 17%, services 23%
Agriculture and Industry
Agriculture products: rice, wheat, oilseed, cotton, jute, tea, sugarcane, potatoes; cattle, water
buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry; fish
Industries: textiles, chemicals, food processing, steel, transportation equipment, cement, mining,
petroleum, machinery, software
Import Commodities and Partners
Commodities: crude oil, machinery, gems, fertilizer, chemicals
Partners: Belgium 5.5%, US 5.4%, China 5.3%, UK 4.4%
Export Commodities and Partners
Commodities: textile goods, gems and jewelry, engineering goods, chemicals, leather manufactures
Partners: US 18.6%, UAE 7.6%, Hong Kong 5.1%, UK 4.8%, China 4.5%, Germany 4.1%
Telephone System
Telephones- main lines in use: 48.917 million
Telephones- mobile cellular: 26,154,400
India Review 2017
Page 262 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
General Assessment: recent deregulation and liberalization of telecommunications laws and policies
have prompted rapid change; local and long distance service provided throughout all regions of the
country, with services primarily concentrated in the urban areas; steady improvement is taking
place with the recent admission of private and private-public investors, but telephone density
remains low at about seven for each 100 persons nationwide but only one per 100 persons in rural
areas and a national waiting list of over 1.7 million; fastest growth is in cellular service with modest
growth in fixed lines
Domestic: expansion of domestic service, although still weak in rural areas, resulted from increased
competition and dramatic reductions in price led in large part by wireless service; mobile cellular
service (both CDMA and GSM) introduced in 1994 and organized nationwide into four
metropolitan cities and 19 telecom circles each with about three private service providers and one
state-owned service provider; in recent years significant trunk capacity added in the form of fiberoptic cable and one of the world's largest domestic satellite systems, the Indian National Satellite
system (INSAT), with five satellites supporting 33,000 very small aperture terminals (VSAT)
International: country code - 91; satellite earth stations - 8 Intelsat (Indian Ocean) and 1 Inmarsat
(Indian Ocean region); nine gateway exchanges operating from Mumbai (Bombay), New Delhi,
Kolkata (Calcutta), Chennai (Madras), Jalandhar, Kanpur, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad, and
Ernakulam; 5 submarine cables, including Sea-Me-We-3 with landing sites at Cochin and Mumbai
(Bombay), Fiber-Optic Link Around the Globe (FLAG) with landing site at Mumbai (Bombay),
South Africa - Far East (SAFE) with landing site at Cochin, i2icn linking to Singapore with landing
sites at Mumbai (Bombay) and Chennai (Madras), and Tata Indicom linking Singapore and
Chennai (Madras), provide a significant increase in the bandwidth available for both voice and data
traffic
Internet
Internet Hosts: 86,871
Internet users: 18.481 million
Roads, Airports, Ports and Harbors
Railways: 63,140 km
Highways: 2,525,989 km
Ports and harbors: Chennai (Madras), Cochin, Jawaharal Nehru, Kandla, Kolkata (Calcutta),
Mumbai (Bombay), Vishakhapatnam
Airports: 333; w/paved runways: 234
India Review 2017
Page 263 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Legal System and Considerations
India’s legal system is based on English common law. The government allows limited judicial
review of legislative acts. India also accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, with reservations.
Separate personal law codes apply to Muslims, Christians, and Hindus who inhabit India.
Dispute Settlement
At present, there are no Indo-American investment disputes over expropriation or nationalization.
Indian courts provide adequate safeguards for the enforcement of property and contractual rights,
but case backlogs frequently lead to long procedural delays. India is not a member of the
International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, but is a member of the New York
Convention of 1958. In February 1996, a new arbitration law came into effect providing for quick
arbitration. Companies have now begun to take cases to the Arbitration Council of India rather
than through the slow judiciary process.
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 is based on the UNCITRAL (United Nations
Commission on International Trade Law) Model Law. The act attempts to unify the adjudication
process on commercial contracts in India with the rest of the world. It is a major step in the
ongoing process of liberalization.
Corruption Perception Ranking
See listing by Transparency International in this Country Review, from the least to most corrupt
countries, for India's current ranking.
Cultural Considerations
In India, the traditional greeting is the namaste. Namaste is offered by holding the palms of the
hands together below the chin, nodding or bowing slightly, and saying the word, "namaste." Rough
translation of the word suggests that it conveys peace, respect and hospitality from one person to
another. Literally, it means something akin to "I bow to the divine in you." This soulful and lyrical
greeting is useful for foreigners in any situation where a handshake may not be acceptable.
It is also worth noting that titles are highly valued in India and adhering to the strictures of
formality is highly advisable. One should always use professional titles and avoid addressing
another by his or her first name unless one is asked to do so, or one is a close friend.
For more information see:
United States’ State Department Commercial Guide
India Review 2017
Page 264 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Foreign Investment Index
Foreign Investment Index
The Foreign Investment Index is a proprietary index measuring attractiveness to international
investment flows. The Foreign Investment Index is calculated using an established methodology by
CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on a given country's economic stability (sustained
economic growth, monetary stability, current account deficits, budget surplus), economic risk (risk
of non-servicing of payments for goods or services, loans and trade-related finance, risk of
sovereign default), business and investment climate (property rights, labor force and laws,
regulatory transparency, openness to foreign investment, market conditions, and stability of
government). Scores are assigned from 0-10 using the aforementioned criteria. A score of 0 marks
the lowest level of foreign investment viability, while a score of 10 marks the highest level of
foreign investment viability, according to this proprietary index.
India Review 2017
Country
Assessment
Afghanistan
2
Albania
4.5
Algeria
6
Andorra
9
Angola
4.5-5
Antigua
8.5
Argentina
5
Armenia
5
Page 265 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Australia
9.5
Austria
9-9.5
Azerbaijan
5
Bahamas
9
Bahrain
7.5
Bangladesh
4.5
Barbados
9
Belarus
4
Belgium
9
Belize
7.5
Benin
5.5
Bhutan
4.5
Bolivia
4.5
Bosnia-Herzegovina
5
Botswana
7.5-8
Brazil
8
Brunei
7
Bulgaria
5.5
Page 266 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Burkina Faso
4
Burma (Myanmar)
4.5
Burundi
4
Cambodia
4.5
Cameroon
5
Canada
9.5
Cape Verde
6
Central African Republic
3
Chad
4
Chile
9
China
7.5
China: Hong Kong
8.5
China: Taiwan
8.5
Colombia
7
Comoros
4
Congo DRC
4
Congo RC
5
Costa Rica
8
Page 267 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Cote d'Ivoire
4.5
Croatia
7
Cuba
4.5
Cyprus
7
Czech Republic
8.5
Denmark
9.5
Djibouti
4.5
Dominica
6
Dominican Republic
6.5
East Timor
4.5
Ecuador
5.5
Egypt
4.5-5
El Salvador
6
Equatorial Guinea
4.5
Eritrea
3.5
Estonia
8
Ethiopia
4.5
Fiji
5
Page 268 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Finland
9
Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia
5
France
9-9.5
Gabon
5.5
Gambia
5
Georgia
5
Germany
9-9.5
Ghana
5.5
Greece
5
Grenada
7.5
Guatemala
5.5
Guinea
3.5
Guinea-Bissau
3.5
Guyana
4.5
Haiti
4
Holy See (Vatican)
n/a
Hong Kong (China)
8.5
Honduras
5.5
Page 269 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Hungary
8
Iceland
8-8.5
India
8
Indonesia
5.5
Iran
4
Iraq
3
Ireland
8
Israel
8.5
Italy
8
Jamaica
5.5
Japan
9.5
Jordan
6
Kazakhstan
6
Kenya
5
Kiribati
5.5
Korea, North
1
Korea, South
9
Kosovo
4.5
Page 270 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Kuwait
8.5
Kyrgyzstan
4.5
Laos
4
Latvia
7
Lebanon
5
Lesotho
5.5
Liberia
3.5
Libya
3
Liechtenstein
9
Lithuania
7.5
Luxembourg
9-9.5
Madagascar
4.5
Malawi
4.5
Malaysia
8.5
Maldives
6.5
Mali
5
Malta
9
Marshall Islands
5
Page 271 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Mauritania
4.5
Mauritius
7.5-8
Mexico
6.5-7
Micronesia
5
Moldova
4.5-5
Monaco
9
Mongolia
5
Montenegro
5.5
Morocco
7.5
Mozambique
5
Namibia
7.5
Nauru
4.5
Nepal
4
Netherlands
9-9.5
New Zealand
9.5
Nicaragua
5
Niger
4.5
Nigeria
4.5
Page 272 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Norway
9-9.5
Oman
8
Pakistan
4
Palau
4.5-5
Panama
7
Papua New Guinea
5
Paraguay
6
Peru
6
Philippines
6
Poland
8
Portugal
7.5-8
Qatar
9
Romania
6-6.5
Russia
6
Rwanda
4
Saint Kitts and Nevis
8
Saint Lucia
8
Saint Vincent and Grenadines
7
Page 273 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Samoa
7
San Marino
8.5
Sao Tome and Principe
4.5-5
Saudi Arabia
7
Senegal
6
Serbia
6
Seychelles
5
Sierra Leone
4
Singapore
9.5
Slovak Republic (Slovakia)
8.5
Slovenia
8.5-9
Solomon Islands
5
Somalia
2
South Africa
8
Spain
7.5-8
Sri Lanka
5.5
Sudan
4
Suriname
5
Page 274 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
Swaziland
4.5
Sweden
9.5
Switzerland
9.5
Syria
2.5
Tajikistan
4
Taiwan (China)
8.5
Tanzania
5
Thailand
7.5-8
Togo
4.5-5
Tonga
5.5-6
Trinidad and Tobago
8-8.5
Tunisia
6
Turkey
6.5-7
Turkmenistan
4
Tuvalu
7
Uganda
5
Ukraine
4.5-5
United Arab Emirates
8.5
Page 275 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
United Kingdom
9
United States
9
Uruguay
6.5-7
Uzbekistan
4
Vanuatu
6
Venezuela
5
Vietnam
5.5
Yemen
3
Zambia
4.5-5
Zimbabwe
3.5
Editor's Note:
As of 2015, the global economic crisis (emerging in 2008) had affected many countries across the
world, resulting in changes to their rankings. Among those countries affected were top tier
economies, such as the United Kingdom, Iceland, Switzerland and Austria. However, in all these
cases, their rankings have moved back upward in the last couple of years as anxieties have
eased. Other top tier countries, such as Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy, suffered some
effects due to debt woes and the concomitant effect on the euro zone. Greece, another euro zone
nation, was also downgraded due to its sovereign debt crisis; however, Greece's position on the
precipice of default incurred a sharper downgrade than the other four euro zone countries
mentioned above. Cyprus' exposure to Greek bank yielded a downgrade in its case. Slovenia and
Latvia have been slightly downgraded due to a mix of economic and political concerns but could
easily be upgraded in a future assessment, should these concerns abate. Meanwhile, the crisis in
eastern Ukraine fueled downgrades in that country and neighboring Russia.
Despite the "trifecta of tragedy" in Japan in 2011 -- the earthquake, the ensuing tsunami, and the
India Review 2017
Page 276 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
resulting nuclear crisis -- and the appreciable destabilization of the economic and political terrain
therein, this country has only slightly been downgraded. Japan's challenges have been assessed to
be transient, the government remains accountable, and there is little risk of default. Both India
and China retain their rankings; India holds a slightly higher ranking than China due to its record of
democratic representation and accountability.
There were shifts in opposite directions for Mali and Nigeria versus the Central African Republic,
Burkina Faso, and Burundi. Mali was slightly upgraded due to its efforts to return to constitutional
order following the 2012 coup and to neutralize the threat of separatists and Islamists. Likewise, a
new government in Nigeria generated a slight upgrade as the country attempts to confront
corruption, crime, and terrorism. But the Central African Republic was downgraded due to the
takeover of the government by Seleka rebels and the continued decline into lawlessness in that
country. Likewise, the attempts by the leaders of Burundi and Burkina Faso to hold onto power
by by-passing the constitution raised eybrows and resulted in downgrades.
Political unrest in Libya and Algeria have contributed to a decision to marginally downgrade these
countries as well. Syria incurred a sharper downgrade due to the devolution into de facto civil war
and the dire security threat posed by Islamist terrorists. Iraq saw a similar downgrade as a result of
the takeover of wide swaths of territory and the threat of genocide at the hands of Islamist
terrorists. Yemen, likewise, has been downgraded due to political instability at the hands of
secessionists, terrorists, Houthi rebels, and the intervention of external parties. Conversely, Egypt
and Tunisia saw slight upgrades as their political environments stabilize.
At the low end of the spectrum, devolving security conditions and/or economic crisis have resulted
in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Zimbabwe maintaining their low ratings.
The United States continues to retain its previous slight downgrade due to the enduring threat of
default surrounding the debt ceiling in that country, matched by a conflict-ridden political climate.
In the case of Mexico, there is limited concern about default, but increasing alarm over the security
situation in that country and the government’s ability to contain it. In Argentina, a default to bond
holders resulted in a downgrade to that country. Finally, a small but significant upgrade was
attributed to Cuba due to its recent pro-business reforms and its normalization of ties with the
Unitd States.
Source:
CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com
Updated:
India Review 2017
Page 277 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
2015
Corruption Perceptions Index
Corruption Perceptions Index
Transparency International: Corruption Perceptions Index
Editor's Note:
Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index is a composite index which ranks
countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials.
This index indicates the views of national and international business people and analysts about the
levels of corruption in each country. The highest (and best) level of transparency is indicated by
the number, 10. The lower (and worse) levels of transparency are indicated by lower numbers.
Rank
Country/Territory
CPI 2009
Score
Surveys
Used
Confidence
Range
1
New Zealand
9.4
6
9.1 - 9.5
2
Denmark
9.3
6
9.1 - 9.5
3
Singapore
9.2
9
9.0 - 9.4
3
Sweden
9.2
6
9.0 - 9.3
5
Switzerland
9.0
6
8.9 - 9.1
6
Finland
8.9
6
8.4 - 9.4
6
Netherlands
8.9
6
8.7 - 9.0
8
Australia
8.7
8
8.3 - 9.0
India Review 2017
Page 278 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
8
Canada
8.7
6
8.5 - 9.0
8
Iceland
8.7
4
7.5 - 9.4
11
Norway
8.6
6
8.2 - 9.1
12
Hong Kong
8.2
8
7.9 - 8.5
12
Luxembourg
8.2
6
7.6 - 8.8
14
Germany
8.0
6
7.7 - 8.3
14
Ireland
8.0
6
7.8 - 8.4
16
Austria
7.9
6
7.4 - 8.3
17
Japan
7.7
8
7.4 - 8.0
17
United Kingdom
7.7
6
7.3 - 8.2
19
United States
7.5
8
6.9 - 8.0
20
Barbados
7.4
4
6.6 - 8.2
21
Belgium
7.1
6
6.9 - 7.3
22
Qatar
7.0
6
5.8 - 8.1
22
Saint Lucia
7.0
3
6.7 - 7.5
24
France
6.9
6
6.5 - 7.3
25
Chile
6.7
7
6.5 - 6.9
25
Uruguay
6.7
5
6.4 - 7.1
India Review 2017
Page 279 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
27
Cyprus
6.6
4
6.1 - 7.1
27
Estonia
6.6
8
6.1 - 6.9
27
Slovenia
6.6
8
6.3 - 6.9
30
United Arab Emirates
6.5
5
5.5 - 7.5
31
Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines
6.4
3
4.9 - 7.5
32
Israel
6.1
6
5.4 - 6.7
32
Spain
6.1
6
5.5 - 6.6
34
Dominica
5.9
3
4.9 - 6.7
35
Portugal
5.8
6
5.5 - 6.2
35
Puerto Rico
5.8
4
5.2 - 6.3
37
Botswana
5.6
6
5.1 - 6.3
37
Taiwan
5.6
9
5.4 - 5.9
39
Brunei Darussalam
5.5
4
4.7 - 6.4
39
Oman
5.5
5
4.4 - 6.5
39
Korea (South)
5.5
9
5.3 - 5.7
42
Mauritius
5.4
6
5.0 - 5.9
43
Costa Rica
5.3
5
4.7 - 5.9
43
Macau
5.3
3
3.3 - 6.9
India Review 2017
Page 280 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
45
Malta
5.2
4
4.0 - 6.2
46
Bahrain
5.1
5
4.2 - 5.8
46
Cape Verde
5.1
3
3.3 - 7.0
46
Hungary
5.1
8
4.6 - 5.7
49
Bhutan
5.0
4
4.3 - 5.6
49
Jordan
5.0
7
3.9 - 6.1
49
Poland
5.0
8
4.5 - 5.5
52
Czech Republic
4.9
8
4.3 - 5.6
52
Lithuania
4.9
8
4.4 - 5.4
54
Seychelles
4.8
3
3.0 - 6.7
55
South Africa
4.7
8
4.3 - 4.9
56
Latvia
4.5
6
4.1 - 4.9
56
Malaysia
4.5
9
4.0 - 5.1
56
Namibia
4.5
6
3.9 - 5.1
56
Samoa
4.5
3
3.3 - 5.3
56
Slovakia
4.5
8
4.1 - 4.9
61
Cuba
4.4
3
3.5 - 5.1
61
Turkey
4.4
7
3.9 - 4.9
India Review 2017
Page 281 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
63
Italy
4.3
6
3.8 - 4.9
63
Saudi Arabia
4.3
5
3.1 - 5.3
65
Tunisia
4.2
6
3.0 - 5.5
66
Croatia
4.1
8
3.7 - 4.5
66
Georgia
4.1
7
3.4 - 4.7
66
Kuwait
4.1
5
3.2 - 5.1
69
Ghana
3.9
7
3.2 - 4.6
69
Montenegro
3.9
5
3.5 - 4.4
71
Bulgaria
3.8
8
3.2 - 4.5
71
FYR Macedonia
3.8
6
3.4 - 4.2
71
Greece
3.8
6
3.2 - 4.3
71
Romania
3.8
8
3.2 - 4.3
75
Brazil
3.7
7
3.3 - 4.3
75
Colombia
3.7
7
3.1 - 4.3
75
Peru
3.7
7
3.4 - 4.1
75
Suriname
3.7
3
3.0 - 4.7
79
Burkina Faso
3.6
7
2.8 - 4.4
79
China
3.6
9
3.0 - 4.2
India Review 2017
Page 282 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
79
Swaziland
3.6
3
3.0 - 4.7
79
Trinidad and Tobago
3.6
4
3.0 - 4.3
83
Serbia
3.5
6
3.3 - 3.9
84
El Salvador
3.4
5
3.0 - 3.8
84
Guatemala
3.4
5
3.0 - 3.9
84
India
3.4
10
3.2 - 3.6
84
Panama
3.4
5
3.1 - 3.7
84
Thailand
3.4
9
3.0 - 3.8
89
Lesotho
3.3
6
2.8 - 3.8
89
Malawi
3.3
7
2.7 - 3.9
89
Mexico
3.3
7
3.2 - 3.5
89
Moldova
3.3
6
2.7 - 4.0
89
Morocco
3.3
6
2.8 - 3.9
89
Rwanda
3.3
4
2.9 - 3.7
95
Albania
3.2
6
3.0 - 3.3
95
Vanuatu
3.2
3
2.3 - 4.7
97
Liberia
3.1
3
1.9 - 3.8
97
Sri Lanka
3.1
7
2.8 - 3.4
India Review 2017
Page 283 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
99
Bosnia and Herzegovina
3.0
7
2.6 - 3.4
99
Dominican Republic
3.0
5
2.9 - 3.2
99
Jamaica
3.0
5
2.8 - 3.3
99
Madagascar
3.0
7
2.8 - 3.2
99
Senegal
3.0
7
2.5 - 3.6
99
Tonga
3.0
3
2.6 - 3.3
99
Zambia
3.0
7
2.8 - 3.2
106
Argentina
2.9
7
2.6 - 3.1
106
Benin
2.9
6
2.3 - 3.4
106
Gabon
2.9
3
2.6 - 3.1
106
Gambia
2.9
5
1.6 - 4.0
106
Niger
2.9
5
2.7 - 3.0
111
Algeria
2.8
6
2.5 - 3.1
111
Djibouti
2.8
4
2.3 - 3.2
111
Egypt
2.8
6
2.6 - 3.1
111
Indonesia
2.8
9
2.4 - 3.2
111
Kiribati
2.8
3
2.3 - 3.3
111
Mali
2.8
6
2.4 - 3.2
India Review 2017
Page 284 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
111
Sao Tome and Principe
2.8
3
2.4 - 3.3
111
Solomon Islands
2.8
3
2.3 - 3.3
111
Togo
2.8
5
1.9 - 3.9
120
Armenia
2.7
7
2.6 - 2.8
120
Bolivia
2.7
6
2.4 - 3.1
120
Ethiopia
2.7
7
2.4 - 2.9
120
Kazakhstan
2.7
7
2.1 - 3.3
120
Mongolia
2.7
7
2.4 - 3.0
120
Vietnam
2.7
9
2.4 - 3.1
126
Eritrea
2.6
4
1.6 - 3.8
126
Guyana
2.6
4
2.5 - 2.7
126
Syria
2.6
5
2.2 - 2.9
126
Tanzania
2.6
7
2.4 - 2.9
130
Honduras
2.5
6
2.2 - 2.8
130
Lebanon
2.5
3
1.9 - 3.1
130
Libya
2.5
6
2.2 - 2.8
130
Maldives
2.5
4
1.8 - 3.2
130
Mauritania
2.5
7
2.0 - 3.3
India Review 2017
Page 285 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
130
Mozambique
2.5
7
2.3 - 2.8
130
Nicaragua
2.5
6
2.3 - 2.7
130
Nigeria
2.5
7
2.2 - 2.7
130
Uganda
2.5
7
2.1 - 2.8
139
Bangladesh
2.4
7
2.0 - 2.8
139
Belarus
2.4
4
2.0 - 2.8
139
Pakistan
2.4
7
2.1 - 2.7
139
Philippines
2.4
9
2.1 - 2.7
143
Azerbaijan
2.3
7
2.0 - 2.6
143
Comoros
2.3
3
1.6 - 3.3
143
Nepal
2.3
6
2.0 - 2.6
146
Cameroon
2.2
7
1.9 - 2.6
146
Ecuador
2.2
5
2.0 - 2.5
146
Kenya
2.2
7
1.9 - 2.5
146
Russia
2.2
8
1.9 - 2.4
146
Sierra Leone
2.2
5
1.9 - 2.4
146
Timor-Leste
2.2
5
1.8 - 2.6
146
Ukraine
2.2
8
2.0 - 2.6
India Review 2017
Page 286 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
146
Zimbabwe
2.2
7
1.7 - 2.8
154
Côte d´Ivoire
2.1
7
1.8 - 2.4
154
Papua New Guinea
2.1
5
1.7 - 2.5
154
Paraguay
2.1
5
1.7 - 2.5
154
Yemen
2.1
4
1.6 - 2.5
158
Cambodia
2.0
8
1.8 - 2.2
158
Central African Republic
2.0
4
1.9 - 2.2
158
Laos
2.0
4
1.6 - 2.6
158
Tajikistan
2.0
8
1.6 - 2.5
162
Angola
1.9
5
1.8 - 1.9
162
Congo Brazzaville
1.9
5
1.6 - 2.1
162
Democratic Republic of
Congo
1.9
5
1.7 - 2.1
162
Guinea-Bissau
1.9
3
1.8 - 2.0
162
Kyrgyzstan
1.9
7
1.8 - 2.1
162
Venezuela
1.9
7
1.8 - 2.0
168
Burundi
1.8
6
1.6 - 2.0
168
Equatorial Guinea
1.8
3
1.6 - 1.9
168
Guinea
1.8
5
1.7 - 1.8
India Review 2017
Page 287 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
168
Haiti
1.8
3
1.4 - 2.3
168
Iran
1.8
3
1.7 - 1.9
168
Turkmenistan
1.8
4
1.7 - 1.9
174
Uzbekistan
1.7
6
1.5 - 1.8
175
Chad
1.6
6
1.5 - 1.7
176
Iraq
1.5
3
1.2 - 1.8
176
Sudan
1.5
5
1.4 - 1.7
178
Myanmar
1.4
3
0.9 - 1.8
179
Afghanistan
1.3
4
1.0 - 1.5
180
Somalia
1.1
3
0.9 - 1.4
Methodology:
As noted above, the highest (and best) level of transparency with the least perceived corruption is
indicated by the number, 10. The lower (and worse) levels of transparency are indicated by lower
numbers.
According to Transparency International, the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) table shows a
country's ranking and score, the number of surveys used to determine the score, and the
confidence range of the scoring.
The rank shows how one country compares to others included in the index. The CPI score
indicates the perceived level of public-sector corruption in a country/territory.
The CPI is based on 13 independent surveys. However, not all surveys include all countries. The
surveys used column indicates how many surveys were relied upon to determine the score for that
country.
India Review 2017
Page 288 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The confidence range indicates the reliability of the CPI scores and tells us that allowing for a
margin of error, we can be 90% confident that the true score for this country lies within this range.
Note:
Kosovo, which separated from the Yugoslav successor state of Serbia, is not listed above. No
calculation is available for Kosovo at this time, however, a future corruption index by
Transparency International may include the world's newest country in its tally. Taiwan has been
listed above despite its contested status; while Taiwan claims sovereign status, China claims
ultimate jurisdiction over Taiwan. Hong Kong, which is also under the rubric of Chinese
sovereignty, is listed above. Note as well that Puerto Rico, which is a United States domain, is also
included in the list above. These inclusions likely have to do with the size and fairly autonomous
status of their economies.
Source:
Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index; available at URL:
http://www.transparency.org
Updated:
Uploaded in 2011 using most recent ranking available; reviewed in 2015.
Competitiveness Ranking
Competitiveness Ranking
Editor's Note:
The Global Competitiveness Report’s competitiveness ranking is based on the Global
Competitiveness Index (GCI), which was developed for the World Economic Forum. The GCI is
based on a number of competitiveness considerations, and provides a comprehensive picture of the
competitiveness landscape in countries around the world. The competitiveness considerations are:
institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and primary education, higher
education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market
development, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication, and innovation. The
rankings are calculated from both publicly available data and the Executive Opinion Survey.
India Review 2017
Page 289 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Country/Economy
GCI 2010
Rank
GCI 2010
Score
GCI 2009
Rank
Change
2009-2010
Switzerland
1
5.63
1
0
Sweden
2
5.56
4
2
Singapore
3
5.48
3
0
United States
4
5.43
2
-2
Germany
5
5.39
7
2
Japan
6
5.37
8
2
Finland
7
5.37
6
-1
Netherlands
8
5.33
10
2
Denmark
9
5.32
5
-4
Canada
10
5.30
9
-1
Hong Kong SAR
11
5.30
11
0
United Kingdom
12
5.25
13
1
Taiwan, China
13
5.21
12
-1
Norway
14
5.14
14
0
France
15
5.13
16
1
Australia
16
5.11
15
-1
India Review 2017
Page 290 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Qatar
17
5.10
22
5
Austria
18
5.09
17
-1
Belgium
19
5.07
18
-1
Luxembourg
20
5.05
21
1
Saudi Arabia
21
4.95
28
7
Korea, Rep.
22
4.93
19
-3
New Zealand
23
4.92
20
-3
Israel
24
4.91
27
3
United Arab Emirates
25
4.89
23
-2
Malaysia
26
4.88
24
-2
China
27
4.84
29
2
Brunei Darussalam
28
4.75
32
4
Ireland
29
4.74
25
-4
Chile
30
4.69
30
0
Iceland
31
4.68
26
-5
Tunisia
32
4.65
40
8
Estonia
33
4.61
35
2
Oman
34
4.61
41
7
India Review 2017
Page 291 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Kuwait
35
4.59
39
4
Czech Republic
36
4.57
31
-5
Bahrain
37
4.54
38
1
Thailand
38
4.51
36
-2
Poland
39
4.51
46
7
Cyprus
40
4.50
34
-6
Puerto Rico
41
4.49
42
1
Spain
42
4.49
33
-9
Barbados
43
4.45
44
1
Indonesia
44
4.43
54
10
Slovenia
45
4.42
37
-8
Portugal
46
4.38
43
-3
Lithuania
47
4.38
53
6
Italy
48
4.37
48
0
Montenegro
49
4.36
62
13
Malta
50
4.34
52
2
India
51
4.33
49
-2
Hungary
52
4.33
58
6
India Review 2017
Page 292 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Panama
53
4.33
59
6
South Africa
54
4.32
45
-9
Mauritius
55
4.32
57
2
Costa Rica
56
4.31
55
-1
Azerbaijan
57
4.29
51
-6
Brazil
58
4.28
56
-2
Vietnam
59
4.27
75
16
Slovak Republic
60
4.25
47
-13
Turkey
61
4.25
61
0
Sri Lanka
62
4.25
79
17
Russian Federation
63
4.24
63
0
Uruguay
64
4.23
65
1
Jordan
65
4.21
50
-15
Mexico
66
4.19
60
-6
Romania
67
4.16
64
-3
Colombia
68
4.14
69
1
Iran
69
4.14
n/a
n/a
Latvia
70
4.14
68
-2
India Review 2017
Page 293 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Bulgaria
71
4.13
76
5
Kazakhstan
72
4.12
67
-5
Peru
73
4.11
78
5
Namibia
74
4.09
74
0
Morocco
75
4.08
73
-2
Botswana
76
4.05
66
-10
Croatia
77
4.04
72
-5
Guatemala
78
4.04
80
2
Macedonia, FYR
79
4.02
84
5
Rwanda
80
4.00
n/a
n/a
Egypt
81
4.00
70
-11
El Salvador
82
3.99
77
-5
Greece
83
3.99
71
-12
Trinidad and Tobago
84
3.97
86
2
Philippines
85
3.96
87
2
Algeria
86
3.96
83
-3
Argentina
87
3.95
85
-2
Albania
88
3.94
96
8
India Review 2017
Page 294 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Ukraine
89
3.90
82
-7
Gambia, The
90
3.90
81
-9
Honduras
91
3.89
89
-2
Lebanon
92
3.89
n/a
n/a
Georgia
93
3.86
90
-3
Moldova
94
3.86
n/a
n/a
Jamaica
95
3.85
91
-4
Serbia
96
3.84
93
-3
Syria
97
3.79
94
-3
Armenia
98
3.76
97
-1
Mongolia
99
3.75
117
18
Libya
100
3.74
88
-12
Dominican Republic
101
3.72
95
-6
Bosnia and Herzegovina
102
3.70
109
7
Benin
103
3.69
103
0
Senegal
104
3.67
92
-12
Ecuador
105
3.65
105
0
Kenya
106
3.65
98
-8
India Review 2017
Page 295 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Bangladesh
107
3.64
106
-1
Bolivia
108
3.64
120
12
Cambodia
109
3.63
110
1
Guyana
110
3.62
104
-6
Cameroon
111
3.58
111
0
Nicaragua
112
3.57
115
3
Tanzania
113
3.56
100
-13
Ghana
114
3.56
114
0
Zambia
115
3.55
112
-3
Tajikistan
116
3.53
122
6
Cape Verde
117
3.51
n/a
n/a
Uganda
118
3.51
108
-10
Ethiopia
119
3.51
118
-1
Paraguay
120
3.49
124
4
Kyrgyz Republic
121
3.49
123
2
Venezuela
122
3.48
113
-9
Pakistan
123
3.48
101
-22
Madagascar
124
3.46
121
-3
India Review 2017
Page 296 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Malawi
125
3.45
119
-6
Swaziland
126
3.40
n/a
n/a
Nigeria
127
3.38
99
-28
Lesotho
128
3.36
107
-21
Côte d'Ivoire
129
3.35
116
-13
Nepal
130
3.34
125
-5
Mozambique
131
3.32
129
-2
Mali
132
3.28
130
-2
Timor-Leste
133
3.23
126
-7
Burkina Faso
134
3.20
128
-6
Mauritania
135
3.14
127
-8
Zimbabwe
136
3.03
132
-4
Burundi
137
2.96
133
-4
Angola
138
2.93
n/a
n/a
Chad
139
2.73
131
-8
Methodology:
The competitiveness rankings are calculated from both publicly available data and the Executive
Opinion Survey, a comprehensive annual survey conducted by the World Economic Forum
India Review 2017
Page 297 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
together with its network of Partner Institutes (leading research institutes and business
organizations) in the countries covered by the Report.
Highlights according to WEF -- The United States falls two places to fourth position, overtaken by Sweden and Singapore in the
rankings of the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011
- The People’s Republic of China continues to move up the rankings, with marked improvements
in several other Asian countries
- Germany moves up two places to fifth place, leading the Eurozone countries
- Switzerland tops the rankings
Source:
World Economic Forum; available at URL: http://www.weforum.org
Updated:
2011 using most recent ranking available; reviewed in 2015.
Taxation
Corporate tax
The main corporate tax rate is around 42 percent. Up to 30 percent of income is taxable for
domestic companies are taxable, in addition to a 10 percent surchange and a 2 percent fee. For
foreign companies, 40 percent of income is taxable, with a 2.5 percent surcharge and 2 percent
education fee.
Individual tax
Taxes for individuals are charged at progressive rates up to 30 percent. In addition, there is a 10
percent surcharge for some higher income brackets and a 2 percent educational fee.
India Review 2017
Page 298 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Capital gains
Short-term capital gains are taxed as income, while long-term capital gains of companies and
individuals are taxed at 20 percent. As well, there is a surcharge and an educational fee.
Indirect tax
There is a value-added tax (VAT), which applies to various goods and services at a standard rate
of 12.5 percent. There are lower rates of 4 percent, which applies to agricultural and industrial
goods and pharmaceuticals, and 1 percent, which applies to gold and silver. A
Stock Market
By the end of the 1990s, India's market had 5,863 listed companies, the Calcutta Stock Exchange
Association had 3200 listed companies, the Delhi Stock Exchange ended with 3880 listed
companies, the Madras Stock Exchange had 1750 listed companies, and the National Stock
Exchange, in Mumbai, had 1268 listed companies.
The indices of the Mumbai Stock Exchange are the BSE Sensex 30, the BSE 100, the BSE 200,
and the Dollex.
Foreign investors wishing to invest in the market are required to register with the Securities and
Exchange Board of India. Foreign investment in listed stocks is limited to 24 percent.
The Over- the- Counter Exchange of India, incorporated in 1990, is the country's first electronic
exchange, and is primarily geared toward small- and medium-sized companies with post-issue,
paid-up capital of less than $70 million. At the end of 1990s the OTC had 115 listed companies
The OTCEI is located in Mumbai.
For more information on the stock exchanges of India, see URLs:
• The National Stock Exchange of India:
• http://www.nseindia.com/
• The Calcutta Stock Exchange Association:
• http://www.cse-india.com/
India Review 2017
Page 299 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
• The Madras Stock Exchange:
• http://www.mseltd.com/
• The Over- the- Counter Exchange of India:
• http://www.otcei.net/
Partner Links
Partner Links
India Review 2017
Page 300 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Chapter 5
Social Overview
India Review 2017
Page 301 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
People
Demography
Although India occupies only 2.4 percent of the world's land area, it supports over 15 percent of
the world's population. With India being home to 1.2 billion people, only China has a larger
population. Forty percent of Indians are younger than 15 years old. About 65 percent of the people
live in more than 550,000 villages, and the remainder in more than 600 towns and cities.
Cultural Diversity
Culturally, India is one of the world's most heterogeneous countries with an extensive and diverse
mixture of ethnic, linguistic and religious groups. Throughout India's history, the area of the Indian
sub-continent was subject to successive incursions of settlers and invaders including Aryans,
Arabs, Parthians, Greeks and other Europeans from the west and northwest; Central Asians from
the north and north west; Mongolians, Tibetans, Burmese and other East Asians from the north
east reaches and the Himalayans; as well as Malay, Asian and Austro-Asian groups from the east
and south east; not to mention African and Oceanic people from the south and south west. This
mélange of people has contributed to a variety of ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural typologies
on the Indian sub-continent today.
The migration patterns of the diverse people into India appear to have contributed to the country's
complexity while the existing ethno-linguistic variety of India's rich and complicated heritage
reflects the major cultural movements mentioned above. In this scheme, the Indo-European group
of languages and ethnicities references the peoples of northwest India and the Gangetic plains, and
this group is reflective of migrations of people from Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia.
Indeed, the languages of this part of India share the linguistic geneaology with modern-day French,
English, Greek and Persian. The other major category, the Dravidian ethno-linguistic group,
appears to include the people of central and southern India, and is reflective of some of the older
languages and ethnic groups of India, such as the Tamil of Madras Tamil-Nadu, the Telegu of
Andhra Pradesh, Kannada in Karnataka and Malayalam in Kerala.
In addition, there are tribal groups, such as the Oraon, the Munda and the Santhal, in the eastern
India Review 2017
Page 302 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
highlands and central India whose language suggest Austro-Asiatic roots, while the Mizo, the Naga,
the Lushai and the Khasi in the north and east, whose languages are reflective of the TibetoBurman ethno-linguistic family. This small collection of tribes has managed to retain its ethnic and
linguistic identity largely because it is located in a fairly remote part of India, and the culture has
been protected by national policies. Efforts by missionaries working to standardize and preserve
the languages of these tribes have also been instrumental in this regard.
There are also a number of groups descended from ancient settlers in India. These groups include
the Jews, the first group of which reportedly migrated from West Asia and settled in Cranganore on
the Malabar Coast of Kerala in the first century, and the second group of which left the Arabian
Peninsula in the 7th century as Islam flourished. Another such group, the Parsis, settled in India in
the 8th century, after escaping Muslim persecution in Persia.
The Europeans also contributed their ethnic and cultural influences to India. The Portuguese were
among the first Europeans to arrive in India, although they did not exert dominion over the subcontinent in the manner of the British. Goa, on the west coast of India, is the center of historic
Portuguese settlement in India. Portuguese Indians, generally referred to as Goans, about half of
whom live in the state of Goa, are descended from Indians in the former Portuguese colony. Many
of them assimilated Portuguese culture, and still others are the descendants of Indo-Portuguese
marriages, which were not only acceptable, but, indeed, encouraged. In addition, the Austrians, the
Danes, the Dutch, and the French held small territories for shorter periods.
European Indians -- descended from British men (in the colonial service and the military) and
Hindu or Muslim women - make up the largest group of Indians with some degree of nonindigenous roots. Because Anglo-Indian unions were frowned upon, this group of people has
generally married among themselves, thus developing an ethnic and cultural sub-caste of its own.
Its characteristics include adherence to Christianity, and a more Westernized diet, dress, and
speech.
Another noteworthy ethnic group, known collectively as Siddhis, are the descendants of Africans
brought to India as slaves. Although most Indians with African origins are descendants of the large
influx of slaves brought to western India in the 17th century, the first Africans reportedly arrived
on the Konkani Coast in the first century during the time of the Arab slave trade. Today, most
Siddhis tend to be Muslims and live predominantly in Gujarat, Daman and Diu, Maharashtra,
Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and other states and union territories, where they are designated as
Scheduled Tribe members.
Linguistic Diversity
In terms of language, the official language of India is Hindi although English also has official status.
India Review 2017
Page 303 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
For use in certain official capacities, the constitution recognizes 18 Scheduled Languages:
Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi,
Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu. Of the four major language
families, there are officially 112 "mother tongues," each with 10,000 or more speakers; 33
languages spoken by one million or more persons. The total number of languages and dialects
varies depending on source and how counted; between 179 and 188 languages and between 49 and
544 dialects have been tabulated.
About 80 percent of Indians speak a language derived from the Indo-Aryan language family. Of the
Indo-Aryan group of languages, Persian and the languages of Afghanistan are close relatives,
belonging, like the Indo-Aryan languages, to the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family.
Brought into India from the northwest during the second millennium before the common era or
B.C.E., the Indo-Aryan tongues spread throughout the north, gradually displacing the earlier
languages of the area. Over a period of centuries, Indo-Aryan languages came to predominate in
the northern and central portions of South Asia.
By about 500 B.C.E, the Sanskrit language, used in religious rites, had also developed along
independent lines and gave rise to an elaborate science of grammar and phonetics, as well as an
alphabetical system seen by some scholars as superior to the Roman system. Today, Sankrit is still
used in academic centers and even on television in India.
Apart from the Indo-Aryan languages, around 18 percent of the Indian populace speak Dravidian
languages. Most Dravidian speakers reside in South India, where Indo-Aryan influence was less
extensive than in the north. Only a few isolated groups of Dravidian speakers, such as the Gonds in
Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, and the Kurukhs in Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, remain in the north
as representatives of the Dravidian speakers who presumably once dominated much more of South
Asia. (The only other significant population of Dravidian speakers are the Brahuis in Pakistan.)
The oldest documented Dravidian language is Tamil, with a substantial body of literature,
particularly the Cankam poetry, going back to the first century in the common era or C.E.
Kannada and Telugu developed extensive bodies of literature after the sixth century, while
Malayalam split from Tamil as a literary language by the 12th century.
In spite of the profound influence of the Sanskrit language and Sanskritic culture on the Dravidian
languages, a strong consciousness of the distinctness of Dravidian languages from Sanskrit
remained. All four major Dravidian languages had consciously differentiated styles varying in the
amount of Sanskrit they contained. In the 20th century, as part of an anti-Brahman movement in
Tamil Nadu, a strong movement arose to "purify" Tamil of its Sanskrit elements, with mixed
success. The other three Dravidian languages were not much affected by this trend.
There are smaller groups, mostly tribal peoples, who speak Sino-Tibetan and Austroasiatic
languages. Sino-Tibetan speakers live along the Himalayan fringe from Jammu and Kashmir to
India Review 2017
Page 304 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
eastern Assam. The Austroasiatic languages, composed of the Munda tongues and others thought
to be related to them, are spoken by groups of tribal peoples from West Bengal through Bihar and
Orissa and into Madhya Pradesh.
Despite this vast and extensive linguistic diversity in India, many scholars treat South Asia as a
single linguistic area because the various language families share a number of features not found
together outside South Asia.
Religion
Although 80 percent of the people are Hindu, India also is the home to more than 120 million
Muslims, making it home to one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. The population
also includes Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Zorastrians, and Parsis. Indeed, one of
India's greatest legacies is the fact that it is the birthplace of four major religions - Hinduism,
Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism.
Social Life
The caste system reflects Indian historical occupation and religiously defined hierarchies.
Traditionally, there are four castes identified, plus a category of outcastes, earlier called
"untouchables" but now referred to as "Dalits," or "the oppressed." In reality, however, there are
thousands of sub-castes, and many Indians identify with these sub-castes. Despite economic
modernization and laws countering discrimination against the lower end of the class structure, the
caste system remains an important factor and de facto reality in Indian society. Today, religion,
caste and language are major determinants of social and political organizations in India today.
Human Development
The population of India has a life expectancy at birth of 69.25 years (66.87 years for males,
and 71.9 years for females) and an infant mortality rate of 32.31 deaths/1,000 live births.
In terms of health and welfare, 3.1 percent of GDP in this country is spent on education
expenditures; 2.4 percent of GDP is spent on health expenditures. Generally, access to water in
this country is good in urban areas and far more problematic in certain rural areas. Access to
sanitation is more of a challenge, especially in rural areas.
In terms of literacy, the average literacy rate is 61 percent. This expressed rate, however, does not
reflect the vast gender divide in regard to literacy in which only 47.8 percent of the female
India Review 2017
Page 305 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
population over the age of 15 can read and write, as compared with 73.4 percent of the male
population. Despite the average literacy rate, and in particular, the low literacy rate among females,
there are segments of the Indian population which are highly educated, and there are certain cities,
such as Bangalore and more recently, Kanpur, renowned as technological centers. This is a vivid
example of the way in which India is often regarded as a country of contrasts.
One notable indicator used to measure a country's quality of life is the Human Development Index
(HDI), which is compiled annually since 1990 by the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP). The HDI is a composite of several indicators, which measure a country's achievements
in three main arenas of human development: longevity, knowledge and education, as well as
economic standard of living. In a recent ranking of 169 countries, the HDI placed India in the
medium human development category, at 119th place.
Note: Although the concept of human development is complicated and cannot be properly captured
by values and indices, the HDI, which is calculated and updated annually, offers a wide-ranging
assessment of human development in certain countries, not based solely upon traditional economic
and financial indicators.
Written by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, www.countrywatch.com . S e e
Bibliography for list of research sources.
Human Development Index
Human Development Index
Human Development Index (Ranked Numerically)
The Human Development Index (HDI) is used to measure quality of life in countries across the
world. The HDI has been compiled since 1990 by the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) on a regular basis. The HDI is a composite of several indicators, which measure a
country's achievements in three main arenas of human development: longevity, education, and
economic standard of living. Although the concept of human development is complicated and
cannot be properly captured by values and indices, the HDI offers a wide-ranging assessment of
human development in certain countries, not based solely upon traditional economic and financial
indicators. For more information about the methodology used to calculate the HDI, please see the
"Source Materials" in the appendices of this review.
India Review 2017
Page 306 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Very High
Human
Development
High Human
Development
Medium Human
Development
Low Human
Development
1. Norway
43. Bahamas
86. Fiji
128. Kenya
2. Australia
44. Lithuania
87. Turkmenistan
129. Bangladesh
3. New Zealand
45. Chile
88. Dominican
Republic
130. Ghana
4. United States
46. Argentina
89. China
131. Cameroon
5. Ireland
47. Kuwait
90. El Salvador
132. Myanmar
(Burma)
6. Liechtenstein
48. Latvia
91. Sri Lanka
133. Yemen
7. Netherlands
49. Montenegro
92. Thailand
134. Benin
8. Canada
50. Romania
93. Gabon
135.
Madagascar
9. Sweden
51. Croatia
94. Surname
136. Mauritania
10. Germany
52. Uruguay
95. Bolivia
137. Papua
New Guinea
11. Japan
53. Libya
96. Paraguay
138. Nepal
12. South Korea
54. Panama
97. Philippines
139. Togo
13. Switzerland
55. Saudi Arabia
98. Botswana
140. Comoros
14. France
56. Mexico
99. Moldova
141. Lesotho
India Review 2017
Page 307 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
15. Israel
57. Malaysia
100. Mongolia
142. Nigeria
16. Finland
58. Bulgaria
101. Egypt
143. Uganda
17. Iceland
59. Trinidad and Tobago
102. Uzbekistan
144. Senegal
18. Belgium
60. Serbia
103. Micronesia
145. Haiti
19. Denmark
61. Belarus
104. Guyana
146. Angola
20. Spain
62. Costa Rica
105. Namibia
147. Djibouti
21. Hong King
63. Peru
106. Honduras
148. Tanzania
22. Greece
64. Albania
107. Maldives
149. Cote
d'Ivoire
23. Italy
65. Russian Federation
108. Indonesia
150. Zambia
24. Luxembourg
66. Kazakhstan
109. Kyrgyzstan
151. Gambia
25. Austria
67. Azerbaijan
110. South Africa
152. Rwanda
26. United
Kingdom
68. Bosnia and
Herzegovina
111. Syria
153. Malawi
27. Singapore
69. Ukraine
112. Tajikistan
154. Sudan
28. Czech
Republic
70. Iran
113. Vietnam
155.
Afghanistan
29. Slovenia
71. The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia
114. Morocco
156. Guinea
30. Andorra
72. Mauritius
115. Nicaragua
157. Ethiopia
158. Sierra
India Review 2017
Page 308 of 440 pages
Country OverView
31. Slovakia
Pending
73. Brazil
116. Guatemala
Leone
32. United Arab
Emirates
74. Georgia
117. Equatorial
Guinea
159. Central
African
Republic
33. Malta
75. Venezuela
118. Cape Verde
160. Mali
34. Estonia
76. Armenia
119. India
161. Burkina
Faso
35. Cyprus
77. Ecuador
120. East Timor
162. Liberia
36. Hungary
78. Belize
121. Swaziland
163. Chad
37. Brunei
79. Colombia
122. Laos
164. GuineaBissau
38. Qatar
80. Jamaica
123. Solomon
Islands
165.
Mozambique
39. Bahrain
81. Tunisia
124. Cambodia
166. Burundi
40. Portugal
82. Jordan
125. Pakistan
167. Niger
83. Turkey
126. Congo RC
168. Congo
DRC
84. Algeria
127. Sao Tome
and Principe
169. Zimbabwe
41. Poland
42. Barbados
85. Tonga
Methodology:
India Review 2017
Page 309 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
For more information about the methodology used to calculate the HDI, please see the "Source
Materials" in the appendices of this Country Review.
Reference:
As published in United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report 2010.
Source:
United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Index available at URL:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
Updated:
Uploaded in 2011 using ranking available; reviewed in 2015
Life Satisfaction Index
Life Satisfaction Index
Life Satisfaction Index
Created by Adrian G. White, an Analytic Social Psychologist at the University of Leicester, the
"Satisfaction with Life Index" measures subjective life satisfaction across various countries. The
data was taken from a metastudy (see below for source) and associates the notion of subjective
happiness or life satisfaction with qualitative parameters such as health, wealth, and access to
basic education. This assessment serves as an alternative to other measures of happiness that tend
to rely on traditional and quantitative measures of policy on quality of life, such as GNP and GDP.
The methodology involved the responses of 80,000 people across the globe.
Rank
Country
Score
1
Denmark
273.4
2
Switzerland
273.33
India Review 2017
Page 310 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
3
Austria
260
4
Iceland
260
5
The Bahamas
256.67
6
Finland
256.67
7
Sweden
256.67
8
Iran
253.33
9
Brunei
253.33
10
Canada
253.33
11
Ireland
253.33
12
Luxembourg
253.33
13
Costa Rica
250
14
Malta
250
15
Netherlands
250
16
Antiguaand Barbuda
246.67
17
Malaysia
246.67
18
New Zealand
246.67
19
Norway
246.67
20
Seychelles
246.67
India Review 2017
Page 311 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
21
Saint Kitts and Nevis
246.67
22
United Arab Emirates
246.67
23
United States
246.67
24
Vanuatu
246.67
25
Venezuela
246.67
26
Australia
243.33
27
Barbados
243.33
28
Belgium
243.33
29
Dominica
243.33
30
Oman
243.33
31
Saudi Arabia
243.33
32
Suriname
243.33
33
Bahrain
240
34
Colombia
240
35
Germany
240
36
Guyana
240
37
Honduras
240
38
Kuwait
240
India Review 2017
Page 312 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
39
Panama
240
40
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
240
41
United Kingdom
236.67
42
Dominican Republic
233.33
43
Guatemala
233.33
44
Jamaica
233.33
45
Qatar
233.33
46
Spain
233.33
47
Saint Lucia
233.33
48
Belize
230
49
Cyprus
230
50
Italy
230
51
Mexico
230
52
Samoa
230
53
Singapore
230
54
Solomon Islands
230
55
Trinidad and Tobago
230
56
Argentina
226.67
India Review 2017
Page 313 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
57
Fiji
223.33
58
Israel
223.33
59
Mongolia
223.33
60
São Tomé and Príncipe
223.33
61
El Salvador
220
62
France
220
63
Hong Kong
220
64
Indonesia
220
65
Kyrgyzstan
220
66
Maldives
220
67
Slovenia
220
68
Taiwan
220
69
East Timor
220
70
Tonga
220
71
Chile
216.67
72
Grenada
216.67
73
Mauritius
216.67
74
Namibia
216.67
India Review 2017
Page 314 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
75
Paraguay
216.67
76
Thailand
216.67
77
Czech Republic
213.33
78
Philippines
213.33
79
Tunisia
213.33
80
Uzbekistan
213.33
81
Brazil
210
82
China
210
83
Cuba
210
84
Greece
210
85
Nicaragua
210
86
Papua New Guinea
210
87
Uruguay
210
88
Gabon
206.67
89
Ghana
206.67
90
Japan
206.67
91
Yemen
206.67
92
Portugal
203.33
India Review 2017
Page 315 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
93
Sri Lanka
203.33
94
Tajikistan
203.33
95
Vietnam
203.33
96
Bhutan
200
97
Comoros
196.67
98
Croatia
196.67
99
Poland
196.67
100
Cape Verde
193.33
101
Kazakhstan
193.33
102
South Korea
193.33
103
Madagascar
193.33
104
Bangladesh
190
105
Republic of the Congo
190
106
The Gambia
190
107
Hungary
190
108
Libya
190
109
South Africa
190
110
Cambodia
186.67
India Review 2017
Page 316 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
111
Ecuador
186.67
112
Kenya
186.67
113
Lebanon
186.67
114
Morocco
186.67
115
Peru
186.67
116
Senegal
186.67
117
Bolivia
183.33
118
Haiti
183.33
119
Nepal
183.33
120
Nigeria
183.33
121
Tanzania
183.33
122
Benin
180
123
Botswana
180
124
Guinea-Bissau
180
125
India
180
126
Laos
180
127
Mozambique
180
128
Palestinian Authority
180
India Review 2017
Page 317 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
129
Slovakia
180
130
Myanmar
176.67
131
Mali
176.67
132
Mauritania
176.67
133
Turkey
176.67
134
Algeria
173.33
135
Equatorial Guinea
173.33
136
Romania
173.33
137
Bosnia and Herzegovina
170
138
Cameroon
170
139
Estonia
170
140
Guinea
170
141
Jordan
170
142
Syria
170
143
Sierra Leone
166.67
144
Azerbaijan
163.33
145
Central African Republic
163.33
146
Republic of Macedonia
163.33
India Review 2017
Page 318 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
147
Togo
163.33
148
Zambia
163.33
149
Angola
160
150
Djibouti
160
151
Egypt
160
152
Burkina Faso
156.67
153
Ethiopia
156.67
154
Latvia
156.67
155
Lithuania
156.67
156
Uganda
156.67
157
Albania
153.33
158
Malawi
153.33
159
Chad
150
160
Côte d'Ivoire
150
161
Niger
150
162
Eritrea
146.67
163
Rwanda
146.67
164
Bulgaria
143.33
India Review 2017
Page 319 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
165
Lesotho
143.33
166
Pakistan
143.33
167
Russia
143.33
168
Swaziland
140
169
Georgia
136.67
170
Belarus
133.33
171
Turkmenistan
133.33
172
Armenia
123.33
173
Sudan
120
174
Ukraine
120
175
Moldova
116.67
176
Democratic Republic of the Congo
110
177
Zimbabwe
110
178
Burundi
100
Commentary:
European countries, such as Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria resided at
the top of the ranking with highest levels of self-reported life satisfaction. Conversely, European
countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine ranked low on the index.
African countries such as Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe a n d Burundi found
themselves at the very bottom of the ranking, and indeed, very few African countries could be
India Review 2017
Page 320 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
found in the top 100. Japan was at the mid-way point in the ranking, however, other Asian
countries such as Brunei and Malaysia were in the top tier, while Pakistan was close to the bottom
with a low level of self-identified life satisfaction. As a region, the Middle East presented a mixed
bad with Saudi Arabians reporing healthy levels of life satisfaction and Egyptians near the bottom
of the ranking. As a region, Caribbean countries were ranked highly, consistently demonstrating
high levels of life satisfaction. The findings showed that health was the most crucial determining
factor in life satisfaction, followed by prosperity and education.
Source:
White, A. (2007). A Global Projection of Subjective Well-being: A Challenge To Positive
Psychology? Psychtalk 56, 17-20. The data was extracted from a meta-analysis by Marks,
Abdallah, Simms & Thompson (2006).
Uploaded:
Based on study noted above in "Source" ; reviewed in 2015
Happy Planet Index
Happy Planet Index
The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is used to measure human well-being in conjunction with
environmental impact. The HPI has been compiled since 2006 by the New Economics
Foundation. The index is a composite of several indicators including subjective life satisfaction, life
expectancy at birth, and ecological footprint per capita.
As noted by NEFA, the HPI "reveals the ecological efficiency with which human well-being is
delivered." Indeed, the index combines environmental impact with human well-being to measure
the environmental efficiency with which, country by country, people live long and happy lives.
The countries ranked highest by the HPI are not necessarily the ones with the happiest people
overall, but the ones that allow their citizens to live long and fulfilling lives, without negatively
impacting this opportunity for either future generations or citizens of other countries. Accordingly,
a country like the United States will rank low on this list due to its large per capital ecological
footprint, which uses more than its fair share of resources, and will likely cause planetary damage.
India Review 2017
Page 321 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
It should be noted that the HPI was designed to be a counterpoint to other well-established indices
of countries' development, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which measures overall
national wealth and economic development, but often obfuscates the realities of countries with
stark variances between the rich and the poor. Moreover, the objective of most of the world's
people is not to be wealthy but to be happy. The HPI also differs from the Human Development
Index (HDI), which measures quality of life but not ecology, since it [HPI] also includes
sustainability as a key indicator.
Rank
Country
HPI
1
Costa Rica
76.1
2
Dominican Republic
71.8
3
Jamaica
70.1
4
Guatemala
68.4
5
Vietnam
66.5
6
Colombia
66.1
7
Cuba
65.7
8
El Salvador
61.5
9
Brazil
61.0
10
Honduras
61.0
11
Nicaragua
60.5
12
Egypt
60.3
India Review 2017
Page 322 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
13
Saudi Arabia
59.7
14
Philippines
59.0
15
Argentina
59.0
16
Indonesia
58.9
17
Bhutan
58.5
18
Panama
57.4
19
Laos
57.3
20
China
57.1
21
Morocco
56.8
22
Sri Lanka
56.5
23
Mexico
55.6
24
Pakistan
55.6
25
Ecuador
55.5
26
Jordan
54.6
27
Belize
54.5
28
Peru
54.4
29
Tunisia
54.3
30
Trinidad and Tobago
54.2
India Review 2017
Page 323 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
31
Bangladesh
54.1
32
Moldova
54.1
33
Malaysia
54.0
34
Tajikistan
53.5
35
India
53.0
36
Venezuela
52.5
37
Nepal
51.9
38
Syria
51.3
39
Burma
51.2
40
Algeria
51.2
41
Thailand
50.9
42
Haiti
50.8
43
Netherlands
50.6
44
Malta
50.4
45
Uzbekistan
50.1
46
Chile
49.7
47
Bolivia
49.3
48
Armenia
48.3
India Review 2017
Page 324 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
49
Singapore
48.2
50
Yemen
48.1
51
Germany
48.1
52
Switzerland
48.1
53
Sweden
48.0
54
Albania
47.9
55
Paraguay
47.8
56
Palestinian Authority
47.7
57
Austria
47.7
58
Serbia
47.6
59
Finland
47.2
60
Croatia
47.2
61
Kyrgyzstan
47.1
62
Cyprus
46.2
63
Guyana
45.6
64
Belgium
45.4
65
Bosnia and Herzegovina
45.0
66
Slovenia
44.5
India Review 2017
Page 325 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
67
Israel
44.5
68
South Korea
44.4
69
Italy
44.0
70
Romania
43.9
71
France
43.9
72
Georgia
43.6
73
Slovakia
43.5
74
United Kingdom
43.3
75
Japan
43.3
76
Spain
43.2
77
Poland
42.8
78
Ireland
42.6
79
Iraq
42.6
80
Cambodia
42.3
81
Iran
42.1
82
Bulgaria
42.0
83
Turkey
41.7
84
Hong Kong
41.6
India Review 2017
Page 326 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
85
Azerbaijan
41.2
86
Lithuania
40.9
87
Djibouti
40.4
88
Norway
40.4
89
Canada
39.4
90
Hungary
38.9
91
Kazakhstan
38.5
92
Czech Republic
38.3
93
Mauritania
38.2
94
Iceland
38.1
95
Ukraine
38.1
96
Senegal
38.0
97
Greece
37.6
98
Portugal
37.5
99
Uruguay
37.2
100
Ghana
37.1
101
Latvia
36.7
102
Australia
36.6
India Review 2017
Page 327 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
103
New Zealand
36.2
104
Belarus
35.7
105
Denmark
35.5
106
Mongolia
35.0
107
Malawi
34.5
108
Russia
34.5
109
Chad
34.3
110
Lebanon
33.6
111
Macedonia
32.7
112
Republic of the Congo
32.4
113
Madagascar
31.5
114
United States
30.7
115
Nigeria
30.3
116
Guinea
30.3
117
Uganda
30.2
118
South Africa
29.7
119
Rwanda
29.6
120
Democratic Republic of the Congo
29.0
India Review 2017
Page 328 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
121
Sudan
28.5
122
Luxembourg
28.5
123
United Arab Emirates
28.2
124
Ethiopia
28.1
125
Kenya
27.8
126
Cameroon
27.2
127
Zambia
27.2
128
Kuwait
27.0
129
Niger
26.9
130
Angola
26.8
131
Estonia
26.4
132
Mali
25.8
133
Mozambique
24.6
134
Benin
24.6
135
Togo
23.3
136
Sierra Leone
23.1
137
Central African Republic
22.9
138
Burkina Faso
22.4
India Review 2017
Page 329 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
139
Burundi
21.8
140
Namibia
21.1
141
Botswana
20.9
142
Tanzania
17.8
143
Zimbabwe
16.6
Source: This material is derived from the Happy Planet Index issued by the New Economics
Foundation (NEF).
Methodology: T h e m e t h o d o l o g y f o r t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s c a n b e f o u n d a t U R L :
http://www.happyplanetindex.org/
Status of Women
Overview
India is the world’s second most populous nation; however, it has only 2.4 percent of the world’s
land. This situation creates great pressure on its natural resources, which has an impact on the
economic status of the people in India, and their standard of living. The impact on women is
particularly pronounced.
Females in India have less access to healthcare than males. Many also have severe health issues
due to harsh working conditions, malnutrition and/or environmental pollution. Many women in
India also live beneath the poverty line.
Women in India often work longer hours than males for less money; however, most of the time
their work is not recognized by society. Males in India are often quoted as saying, “women, like
India Review 2017
Page 330 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
children, eat and do nothing.” Women are seen as a liability in Indian society and are often treated
as such.
While women are guaranteed equity under the laws of the land, in practice, this is not always the
case. Many women lack the power to decide whom they will marry, where they will work, and
often if they will be able to pursue higher education.
In recent years, there has been a rising number of violent incidences against women, in terms of
rapes, assaults, and even dowry-related murders. Fear of violence and harassment serves to
suppress the voice of women in society. Female infanticide is an additional form of violence that
reflects the continuing devaluation of women in Indian society.
That said, measures are underway to put more power in the hands of women. For example, in
recent years, a quota was put in place to set aside a minimal number of seats tp be occupied by
women in parliament. There is also a National Human Rights Commission for Women that handles
all reported incidences of violence against women and a National Council for Women that
advocates policies on their behalf. India has also enjoyed the leadership of a female prime minister
-- Indira Gandhi, as well as a female head of one of its main political parties -- Sonia Gandhi.
Gender Related Development Index (GDI) Rank:
98th out of 140
Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) Rank:
Not Ranked
Female Population:
531.9 million
Female Life Expectancy at birth:
71.9 years
Total Fertility Rate:
3.1
Maternal Mortality Ratio:
540
India Review 2017
Page 331 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Total Number of Women Living with HIV/AIDS:
820,000-2.8 million
Ever Married Women, Ages 15-19 (%):
30%
Mean Age at Time of Marriage:
20
Contraceptive Use Among Married Women, Any Method (%):
48%
Female Adult Literacy Rate:
47.8%
Combined Female Gross enrollment ratio for Primary, Secondary and Tertiary schools:
56%
Female-Headed Households (%):
10%
Economically Active Females (%):
42.5%
Female Contributing Family Workers (%):
N/A
Female Estimated Earned Income:
$1,569
Seats in Parliament held by women (%):
India Review 2017
Page 332 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Lower or Single House: 8.3%
Upper House or Senate: 11.6%
Year Women Received the Right to Vote:
1950
Year Women Received the Right to Stand for Election:
1950
*The Gender Development Index (GDI) is a composite index which measures the average
achievement in a country. While very similar to the Human Development Index in its use of the
same variables, the GDI adjusts the average achievement of each country in terms of life
expectancy, enrollment in schools, income, and literacy in accordance to the disparities between
males and females.
*The Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) is a composite index measuring gender inequality in
three of the basic dimensions of empowerment; economic participation and decision-making,
political participation and decision-making, and power over economic resources.
*Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is defined as the average number of babies born to women during their
reproductive years. A TFR of 2.1 is considered the replacement rate; once a TFR of a population
reaches 2.1 the population will remain stable assuming no immigration or emigration takes place.
When the TFR is greater than 2.1 a population will increase and when it is less than 2.1 a
population will eventually decrease, although due to the age structure of a population it will take
years before a low TFR is translated into lower population.
*Maternal Mortality Rate is the number of deaths to women per 100,000 live births that resulted
from conditions related to pregnancy and or delivery related complications.
*Economically Active Females are the share of the female population, ages 15 and above, whom
supply, or are able to supply, labor for the production of goods and services.
*Female Contributing Family Workers are those females who work without pay in an economic
enterprise operated by a relative living in the same household.
*Estimated Earned Income is measured according to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) in US
dollars.
India Review 2017
Page 333 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Global Gender Gap Index
Global Gender Gap Index
Editor's Note:
The Global Gender Gap Index by the World Economic Forum ranks most of the world’s countries
in terms of the division of resources and opportunities among males and females. Specifically, the
ranking assesses the gender inequality gap in these four arenas:
1. Economic participation and opportunity (salaries and high skilled employment participation
levels)
2. Educational attainment (access to basic and higher level education)
3. Political empowerment (representation in decision-making structures)
4. Health and survival (life expectancy and sex ratio)
2010
rank
2010
score
2010
rank
among
2009
countries
Iceland
1
0.8496
1
1
0.8276
4
0.7999
4
Norway
2
0.8404
2
3
0.8227
1
0.8239
2
Finland
3
0.8260
3
2
0.8252
2
0.8195
3
Sweden
4
0.8024
4
4
0.8139
3
0.8139
1
New
Zealand
5
0.7808
5
5
0.7880
5
0.7859
5
2009
rank
2009
score
2008
rank
2008
score
2007
rank
Country
India Review 2017
Page 334 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Ireland
6
0.7773
6
8
0.7597
8
0.7518
9
Denmark
7
0.7719
7
7
0.7628
7
0.7538
8
Lesotho
8
0.7678
8
10
0.7495
16
0.7320
26
Philippines
9
0.7654
9
9
0.7579
6
0.7568
6
Switzerland
10
0.7562
10
13
0.7426
14
0.7360
40
Spain
11
0.7554
11
17
0.7345
17
0.7281
10
South Africa
12
0.7535
12
6
0.7709
22
0.7232
20
Germany
13
0.7530
13
12
0.7449
11
0.7394
7
Belgium
14
0.7509
14
33
0.7165
28
0.7163
19
United
Kingdom
15
0.7460
15
15
0.7402
13
0.7366
11
Sri Lanka
16
0.7458
16
16
0.7402
12
0.7371
15
Netherlands
17
0.7444
17
11
0.7490
9
0.7399
12
Latvia
18
0.7429
18
14
0.7416
10
0.7397
13
United
States
19
0.7411
19
31
0.7173
27
0.7179
31
Canada
20
0.7372
20
25
0.7196
31
0.7136
18
Trinidad and
Tobago
21
0.7353
21
19
0.7298
19
0.7245
46
Mozambique
22
0.7329
22
26
0.7195
18
0.7266
43
India Review 2017
Page 335 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Australia
23
0.7271
23
20
0.7282
21
0.7241
17
Cuba
24
0.7253
24
29
0.7176
25
0.7195
22
Namibia
25
0.7238
25
32
0.7167
30
0.7141
29
Luxembourg
26
0.7231
26
63
0.6889
66
0.6802
58
Mongolia
27
0.7194
27
22
0.7221
40
0.7049
62
Costa Rica
28
0.7194
28
27
0.7180
32
0.7111
28
Argentina
29
0.7187
29
24
0.7211
24
0.7209
33
Nicaragua
30
0.7176
30
49
0.7002
71
0.6747
90
Barbados
31
0.7176
31
21
0.7236
26
0.7188
n/a
Portugal
32
0.7171
32
46
0.7013
39
0.7051
37
Uganda
33
0.7169
33
40
0.7067
43
0.6981
50
Moldova
34
0.7160
34
36
0.7104
20
0.7244
21
Lithuania
35
0.7132
35
30
0.7175
23
0.7222
14
Bahamas
36
0.7128
36
28
0.7179
n/a
n/a
n/a
Austria
37
0.7091
37
42
0.7031
29
0.7153
27
Guyana
38
0.7090
38
35
0.7108
n/a
n/a
n/a
Panama
39
0.7072
39
43
0.7024
34
0.7095
38
Ecuador
40
0.7072
40
23
0.7220
35
0.7091
44
India Review 2017
Page 336 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Kazakhstan
41
0.7055
41
47
0.7013
45
0.6976
32
Slovenia
42
0.7047
42
52
0.6982
51
0.6937
49
Poland
43
0.7037
43
50
0.6998
49
0.6951
60
Jamaica
44
0.7037
44
48
0.7013
44
0.6980
39
Russian
Federation
45
0.7036
45
51
0.6987
42
0.6994
45
France
46
0.7025
46
18
0.7331
15
0.7341
51
Estonia
47
0.7018
47
37
0.7094
37
0.7076
30
Chile
48
0.7013
48
64
0.6884
65
0.6818
86
Macedonia,
FYR
49
0.6996
49
53
0.6950
53
0.6914
35
Bulgaria
50
0.6983
50
38
0.7072
36
0.7077
25
Kyrgyz
Republic
51
0.6973
51
41
0.7058
41
0.7045
70
Israel
52
0.6957
52
45
0.7019
56
0.6900
36
Croatia
53
0.6939
53
54
0.6944
46
0.6967
16
Honduras
54
0.6927
54
62
0.6893
47
0.6960
68
Colombia
55
0.6927
55
56
0.6939
50
0.6944
24
Singapore
56
0.6914
56
84
0.6664
84
0.6625
77
Thailand
57
0.6910
57
59
0.6907
52
0.6917
52
India Review 2017
Page 337 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Greece
58
0.6908
58
85
0.6662
75
0.6727
72
Uruguay
59
0.6897
59
57
0.6936
54
0.6907
78
Peru
60
0.6895
60
44
0.7024
48
0.6959
75
China
61
0.6881
61
60
0.6907
57
0.6878
73
Botswana
62
0.6876
62
39
0.7071
63
0.6839
53
Ukraine
63
0.6869
63
61
0.6896
62
0.6856
57
Venezuela
64
0.6863
64
69
0.6839
59
0.6875
55
Czech
Republic
65
0.6850
65
74
0.6789
69
0.6770
64
Tanzania
66
0.6829
66
73
0.6797
38
0.7068
34
Romania
67
0.6826
67
70
0.6805
70
0.6763
47
Malawi
68
0.6824
68
76
0.6738
81
0.6664
87
Paraguay
69
0.6804
69
66
0.6868
100
0.6379
69
Ghana
70
0.6782
70
80
0.6704
77
0.6679
63
Slovak
Republic
71
0.6778
71
68
0.6845
64
0.6824
54
Vietnam
72
0.6776
72
71
0.6802
68
0.6778
42
Dominican
Republic
73
0.6774
73
67
0.6859
72
0.6744
65
Italy
74
0.6765
74
72
0.6798
67
0.6788
84
India Review 2017
Page 338 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Gambia,
The
75
0.6762
75
75
0.6752
85
0.6622
95
Bolivia
76
0.6751
76
82
0.6693
80
0.6667
80
Brueni
Darussalem
77
0.6748
77
94
0.6524
99
0.6392
n/a
Albania
78
0.6726
78
91
0.6601
87
0.6591
66
Hungary
79
0.6720
79
65
0.6879
60
0.6867
61
Madagascar
80
0.6713
80
77
0.6732
74
0.6736
89
Angola
81
0.6712
81
106
0.6353
114
0.6032
110
Bangladesh
82
0.6702
82
93
0.6526
90
0.6531
100
Malta
83
0.6695
83
88
0.6635
83
0.6634
76
Armenia
84
0.6669
84
90
0.6619
78
0.6677
71
Brazil
85
0.6655
85
81
0.6695
73
0.6737
74
Cyprus
86
0.6642
86
79
0.6706
76
0.6694
82
Indonesia
87
0.6615
87
92
0.6580
93
0.6473
81
Georgia
88
0.6598
88
83
0.6680
82
0.6654
67
Tajikistan
89
0.6598
89
86
0.6661
89
0.6541
79
El Salvador
90
0.6596
90
55
0.6939
58
0.6875
48
Mexico
91
0.6577
91
98
0.6503
97
0.6441
93
India Review 2017
Page 339 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Zimbabwe
92
0.6574
92
95
0.6518
92
0.6485
88
Belize
93
0.6536
93
87
0.6636
86
0.6610
94
Japan
94
0.6524
94
101
0.6447
98
0.6434
91
Mauritius
95
0.6520
95
96
0.6513
95
0.6466
85
Kenya
96
0.6499
96
97
0.6512
88
0.6547
83
Cambodia
97
0.6482
97
104
0.6410
94
0.6469
98
Malaysia
98
0.6479
98
100
0.6467
96
0.6442
92
Maldives
99
0.6452
99
99
0.6482
91
0.6501
99
Azerbaijan
100
0.6446
100
89
0.6626
61
0.6856
59
Senegal
101
0.6414
101
102
0.6427
n/a
n/a
n/a
Suriname
102
0.6407
102
78
0.6726
79
0.6674
56
United Arab
Emirates
103
0.6397
103
112
0.6198
105
0.6220
105
Korea, Rep.
104
0.6342
104
115
0.6146
108
0.6154
97
Kuwait
105
0.6318
105
105
0.6356
101
0.6358
96
Zambia
106
0.6293
106
107
0.6310
106
0.6205
101
Tunisia
107
0.6266
107
109
0.6233
103
0.6295
102
Fiji
108
0.6256
108
103
0.6414
n/a
n/a
n/a
Guatemala
109
0.6238
109
111
0.6209
112
0.6072
106
India Review 2017
Page 340 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Bahrain
110
0.6217
110
116
0.6136
121
0.5927
115
Burkina
Faso
111
0.6162
111
120
0.6081
115
0.6029
117
India
112
0.6155
112
114
0.6151
113
0.6060
114
Mauritania
113
0.6152
113
119
0.6103
110
0.6117
111
Cameroon
114
0.6110
114
118
0.6108
117
0.6017
116
Nepal
115
0.6084
115
110
0.6213
120
0.5942
125
Lebanon*
116
0.6084
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Qatar
117
0.6059
116
125
0.5907
119
0.5948
109
Nigeria
118
0.6055
117
108
0.6280
102
0.6339
107
Algeria
119
0.6052
118
117
0.6119
111
0.6111
108
Jordan
120
0.6048
119
113
0.6182
104
0.6275
104
Ethiopia
121
0.6019
120
122
0.5948
122
0.5867
113
Oman
122
0.5950
121
123
0.5938
118
0.5960
119
Iran
123
0.5933
122
128
0.5839
116
0.6021
118
Syria
124
0.5926
123
121
0.6072
107
0.6181
103
Egypt
125
0.5899
124
126
0.5862
124
0.5832
120
Turkey
126
0.5876
125
129
0.5828
123
0.5853
121
Morocco
127
0.5767
126
124
0.5926
125
0.5757
122
India Review 2017
Page 341 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Benin
128
0.5719
127
131
0.5643
126
0.5582
123
Saudi Arabia
129
0.5713
128
130
0.5651
128
0.5537
124
Côte
d'Ivoire*
130
0.5691
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Mali
131
0.5680
129
127
0.5860
109
0.6117
112
Pakistan
132
0.5465
130
132
0.5458
127
0.5549
126
Chad
133
0.5330
131
133
0.5417
129
0.5290
127
Yemen
134
0.4603
132
134
0.4609
130
0.4664
128
Belarus
n/a
n/a
n/a
34
0.7141
33
0.7099
23
Uzbekistan
n/a
n/a
n/a
58
0.6913
55
0.6906
41
*new country 2010
Commentary:
According to the report’s index, Nordic countries, such as Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden
have continued to dominate at the top of the ranking for gender equality. Meanwhile, France has
seen a notable decline in the ranking, largely as a result of decreased number of women holding
ministerial portfolios in that country. In the Americas, the United States has risen in the ranking to
top the region, predominantly as a result of a decreasing wage gap, as well as higher number of
women holding key positions in the current Obama administration. Canada has continued to
remain as one of the top ranking countries of the Americas, followed by the small Caribbean island
nation of Trinidad and Tobago, which has the distinction of being among the top three countries of
the Americans in the realm of gender equality. Lesotho and South African ranked highly in the
India Review 2017
Page 342 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
index, leading not only among African countries but also in global context. Despite Lesotho still
lagging in the area of life expectancy, its high ranking was attributed to high levels of female
participation in the labor force and female literacy. The Philippines and Sri Lanka were the top
ranking countries for gender equality for Asia, ranking highly also in global context. The
Philippines has continued to show strong performance in all strong performance on all four
dimensions (detailed above) of the index. Finally, in the Arab world, the United Arab Emirates
held the highest-rank within that region of the world; however, its placement near the bottom of
the global list highlights the fact that Arab countries are generally poor performers when it comes
to the matter of gender equality in global scope.
Source:
This data is derived from the latest edition of The Global Gender Gap Report by the World
Economic Forum.
Available at URL:
http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Women%20Leaders%20and%20Gender%20Parity/GenderGapNetw
Updated:
Based on latest available data as set forth in chart; reviewed in 2014
Culture and Arts
Content to come!
Etiquette
Cultural Dos and Taboos
1. India is home to many religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Jainism,
Zoroastrianism and Sikhism, to name a few). There is also a plethora of recognized languages,
India Review 2017
Page 343 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
mother tongues, and linguistic dialects in India. Ethnically, there are also differences between
Indians from east to west, and north to south. Visitors to India should expect a varied and vibrant
mélange of cultures and traditions in this country, as well as the requisite cultural and social
sensitivities that are associated with such diversity.
2. In large cities, Indian men and women who subscribe to more Westernized habits and tendencies
will offer to shake hands when greeting others. Nevertheless, foreign women should avoid initiating
handshakes with Indian men. Generally, speaking, Hindu Indians avoid public contact between
men and women; only Westernized Hindus will shake hands with the opposite sex. Traditionally
there is no physical contact between Muslim men and women. Indians, regardless of religious
affiliations, tend to disapprove of public displays of affection between the opposite sex.. One
should avoid touching, (except the specific cases of handshaking noted above), hugging, or kissing
when greeting another person.
3. Titles are highly valued in India and adhering to the strictures of formality is highly advisable.
One should always use professional titles and avoid addressing another by his or her first name
unless one is asked to do so, or one is a close friend.
4. The traditional greeting is the namaste. Namaste is offered by holding the palms of the hands
together below the chin, nodding or bowing slightly, and saying the word, "namaste." Rough
translation of the word suggests that it conveys peace, respect and hospitality from one person to
another. Literally, it means something akin to "I bow to the divine in you." This soulful and lyrical
greeting is useful for foreigners in any situation where a handshake may not be acceptable.
5. Many Indians consider the head to be the seat of the soul. One should avoid touching someone
else's head. Simply patting the hair of a child may seem to be a harmless and affectionate act in
Western culture, but it may not be so well-received in India.
6. One should also avoid standing with one's hands on one's hips, as this stance may well be
interpreted as an angry, aggressive posture.
7. One should eschew pointing with a finger, as it is considered to be an offensive gesture,
sometimes denoting annoyance. Indeed, Indians often point with the chin.
8. One should also eschew winking with the eyes. Winking may be misinterpreted as either an
insult or a sexual proposition.
9. The protocol surrounding one's feet should also be noted. For example, one should not point
one's feet at another person. Also, feet are considered unclean, so if one's shoes or feet touch
another person's shoes or feet, one should be sure to apologize. Upon entering someone's house,
one would normally remove one's shoes unless invited to do otherwise; again, this custom is
India Review 2017
Page 344 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
associated with notions of cleanliness in regard to the feet.
10. Visitors to India should note that the gestures for "yes" and "no" mean something other than
the Western connotation. This difference can be confusing in cross-cultural communication.
Indians swivel their heads from side to side for both affirmative abd negative responses (this is
basically a combination of both of the North American head movements for "yes" and "no"). One
should try to procure a verbal response to questions, in order to avoid miscommunication.
11. Note that the implications of the word "no" in India are very significant. Among Indians,
evasive refusals, rather than outright negations, and are considered to be preferable. When one is
offered an invitation, for example, one would respond with vague avoidances, such as "maybe,
we'll see" or "I'll try." Visitors should emulate these muted refusals in situations with locals where
an outright "no" would normally suffice.
12. Many travel experts suggest that while offers to visit someone's home may be presented, in
India, it is advisable that one only accept such offers from trusted friends and acquaintances in
India. Although Indians are very hospitable people, caution should be exercised until one has
gained some experience with the people and culture of India.
13. Once one has determined that a visit to an Indian home is acceptable, one should take a small
gift for the host and/or the hostess. Chocolates, candy or flowers are all suggested choices,
although frangipani blossoms should be avoided, as they are associated with funerals. An ornament
from one's home would be considered to be a lovely choice. Whatever gift is selected, it should not
be wrapped in black or white, which are considered to be unlucky colors. Green, red or yellow
wrapping are better choices. One should also note that gifts are not normally opened in the
presence of the giver. If one receives a wrapped gift, one should set it aside until the giver leaves.
Sending a note of thanks for the gift, once it has been opened, is also good protocol. Remember
that Hindus do not eat beef and Muslims do not eat pork. Gifts of leather made from cows, as well
as pigskins (footballs), are not appropriate within these two respective communities.
14. When visiting someone's home, if refreshments are offered, it is customary to refuse the first
offer, but to accept on the second or third offering. Refusal of any refreshment is regarded as rude
and ungracious.
15. In Muslim homes, note that one should eat with the right hand; the left hand is considered
unclean. Simply touching a communal dish with the left hand may cause fellow diners to avoid it.
16. Eating from another person's plate is inappropriate. One should never offer another person
(even a spouse) food from one's own plate, or alternatively, eat from another's plate.
17. At the end of a meal, do not thank the host as the words, "thank you," may be viewed as a
India Review 2017
Page 345 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
form of payment. The sharing of a meal is considered to be akin to sharing a friendship and is
deeply meaningful among Indians. Returning the meal by inviting the host to dinner or an
equivalent meal shows that one values the relationship. One might also show appreciation for the
meal by complimenting the food, and by partaking of second or even third helpings, when offered.
Mentioning how kind and hospitable the host has been would also be appropriate.
18. When traveling in India, it is best to convey the image of quiet confidence and to act as if one
knows the country and the region. Appearing confused or lost can make one the object of foul
play. Women should take care not to travel alone, especially in less populated areas, and should
avoid walking around town at odd times. When one is confronted by the poor and destitute, even
though it may one's natural impulse to respond charitably, most travel experts suggest that such
persons not be encouraged. As is the case when traveling in many developing countries, one should
also be cautious about water and food contamination.
19. When shopping for antiques In India, one should avoid purchasing goods older than 100 years
old. Many good, such as "shahtoosh" shawls and ivory, are illegal to either purchase or sell. Make
a point of learning what kind of antiques and cultural crafts may be legally and safely bought in
India, with full systemic transparency. One should also avail one's self of the customary bargaining
practices, while simultaneously employing transparency throughout the entire transaction.
20. When visiting temples and other holy sites, note that it is often prohibited to take photographs
of deities. Be sure to procure permission before doing so.
21. Likewise, one should not photograph women without prior permission.
22. Travel experts suggest that one should only visit sacred sites and spaces which are wellpublicized, and that are sanctioned by governmental bodies. Sites that encourage social injustice
and inhumane practices should be avoided, according to the experts. Visiting "sati" temples - where
women are thrown onto their husbands' funeral pyres - are examples of such ill-recommended
sites.
23. It is customary to remove one's shoes before entering a home (as noted above) or place of
worship. Be sure to adhere to these rules of convention when one visits a home or place of
worship (including temples, tombs, dargahs). Likewise, one should be sure to cover one's head in
scared spaces. Usually, a cloth of some kind will suffice, although the Hindu veil is commonplace
among women.
24. Because cows are considered to be sacred creatures by Hindus, one should not wear leather
products in Hindu temples and at other sites considered to be sacred among Hindus.
25. Modest clothing is also advisable when visiting holy sites, while clothing in the color of black
India Review 2017
Page 346 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
should be avoided in Jain temples. Indeed, conservative dress at all times is imperative in India.
Cottons and silks in light colors are popular and comfortable fabrics, and are suitable for the hot
climate that pervades much of India. Indian men tend to wear "kurtas" (tunic-like shirts) over loose
"dhotis" and "loongis" (loose pajama-like pants), while Indian women tend to wear "saris"
(elaborate draped dresses made of several yards of material). "Saris" can range from simple cotton
fabrics, to more colorful silks and satins designed with detailed embroidery and threadwork in gold
as well as silver. Among business people, however, it is common for Indians to wear Western suits
and garb as well as the traditional fare. Visitors can stick to Western clothing styles or dress like a
local, the only requisite element is that modesty be employed.
Travel Information
Please Note
This is a generalized travel guide and it is intended to coalesce several resources, which a
traveler might find useful, regardless of a particular destination. As such, it does not
include travel warnings for specific "hot spot" destinations.
For travel alerts and warnings, please see the United States Department of State's listings
available at URL:
http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings.html
Please note that travel to the following countries, based on these warnings, is ill-advised, or
should be undertaken with the utmost precaution:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea,
Honduras, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Niger,
Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Palestinian Territories of West Bank and Gaza,
India Review 2017
Page 347 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Philippines areas of Sulu Archipelago, Mindanao, and southern Sulu Sea, Saudi Arabia,
Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen.
International Travel Guide
Checklist for Travelers
1. Take out travel insurance to cover hospital treatment or medical evacuation. Overseas medical
costs are expensive to most international travelers, where one's domestic, nationalized or even
private health insurance plans will not provide coverage outside one's home country. Learn about
"reciprocal insurance plans" that some international health care companies might offer.
2. Make sure that one's travel insurance is appropriate. If one intends to indulge in adventurous
activities, such as parasailing, one should be sure that one is fully insured in such cases. Many
traditional insurance policies do not provide coverage in cases of extreme circumstances.
3. Take time to learn about one's destination country and culture. Read and learn about the place
one is traveling. Also check political, economic and socio-cultural developments at the destination
by reading country-specific travel reports and fact sheets noted below.
4. Get the necessary visas for the country (or countries) one intends to visit - but be aware that a
visa does not guarantee entry. A number of useful sites regarding visa and other entry requirements
are noted below.
5. Keep in regular contact with friends and relatives back at home by phone or email, and be sure
to leave a travel itinerary.
6. Protect one's personal information by making copies of one's passport details, insurance policy,
travelers checks and credit card numbers. Taking copies of such documents with you, while
leaving another collection copies with someone at home is also good practice for travelers. Taking
copies of one's passport photograph is also recommended.
7. Stay healthy by taking all possible precautions against illness. Also, be sure to take extra supplies
of prescription drugs along for the trip, while also taking time to pack general pharmaceutical
supplies, such as aspirin and other such painkillers, bandages, stomach ailment medication, antiinflammatory medication and anti-bacterial medication.
8. Do not carry illicit drugs. Understand that the punishment for possession or use of illegal drugs
in some countries may be capital punishment. Make sure your prescription drugs are legal in the
India Review 2017
Page 348 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
countries you plan to visit.
9. Know the laws of one's destination country and culture; be sure to understand the repercussions
of breaking those laws and regulations. Often the transparency and freedoms of the juridical
system at home is not consistent with that of one's destination country. Become aware of these
complexities and subtleties before you travel.
10. For longer stays in a country, or where the security situation is volatile, one should register
one's self and traveling companions at the local embassy or consulate of one's country of
citizenship.
11. Women should take care to be prepared both culturally and practically for traveling in a
different country and culture. One should be sure to take sufficient supplies of personal feminine
products and prescription drugs. One should also learn about local cultural standards for women,
including norms of dressing. Be aware that it is simply inappropriate and unsafe for women to
travel alone in some countries, and take the necessary precautions to avoid risk-filled situations.
12. If one is traveling with small children, one should pack extra supplies, make arrangements with
the travel carrier for proper seating that would adequately accommodate children, infants or
toddlers. Note also that whether one is male of female, traveling with children means that one's
hands are thus not free to carry luggage and bags. Be especially aware that this makes one
vulnerable to pickpockets, thieves and other sorts of crime.
13. Make proper arrangements for accommodations, well in advance of one's arrival at a
destination. Some countries have limited accommodation, while others may have culturally
distinctive facilities. Learning about these practicalities before one travels will greatly aid the
enjoyment of one's trip.
14. Travel with different forms of currency and money (cash, traveler's checks and credit cards) in
anticipation that venues may not accept one or another form of money. Also, ensuring that one's
financial resources are not contained in one location, or by one person (if one is traveling with
others) can be a useful measure, in the event that one loses a wallet or purse.
15. Find out about transportation in the destination country. In some places, it might be advisable
to hire a local driver or taxi guide for safety reasons, while in other countries, enjoying one's travel
experience may well be enhanced by renting a vehicle and seeing the local sights and culture
independently. Costs may also be prohibitive for either of these choices, so again, prior planning is
suggested.
Tips for Travelers
India Review 2017
Page 349 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
• Check with your embassy, consulate, or appropriate government institution related to travel
before traveling.
• Visas. Most foreign nationals require visas for India. If you arrive without a visa you can expect
to be sent back. Multiple visas have restrictions. Check the details and always check with the
issuing authority that your visa is valid for when you intend to travel. Many people are caught out
by misreading their visas. If you intend to take side trips out of India, say to Nepal, then return.
Make sure you have a double, triple or multiple visa according to your needs. Don't overstay the
time limit on your stay in India or you could go to jail or face a fine.
• Book a hotel room prior to arrival. Tourists are advised to book at least their first night's
accommodation before arrival in India. Those without somewhere to stay can fall prey to rogue
taxi and rickshaw drivers who offer to take them to a hotel. Unwitting victims have been attacked
and robbed.
• Keep your money and passport in a safe place. The theft of passports and other belongings is on
the increase. Replacing a passport will take time and money. Organized gangs of thieves work the
trains on tourist routes. Keep your passport, money and valuables on you and not in your hand
baggage. Do take particular care of your belongings whilst boarding and alighting from trains. Enter
next of kin details into the back of your passport.
• Changing money. Foreign currency regulations are strict. Only change money at banks or legal
foreign exchange dealers. Keep and look after your transaction receipts as you may be required to
provide proof that you obtained your rupees legally.
• Health. Many foreigners fall victim to the heat, which may be extreme and to dysentery and
diarrhea caused by eating and drinking contaminated food and drink. Eat only recently prepared
food that has been thoroughly cooked, and take sufficient liquids in the form of water that has
been boiled, or bottled drinks, to prevent dehydration.
• Health Insurance. Make sure that you have comprehensive medical insurance to include private
treatment and hospitalization as well as medical evacuation, since the State medical services are not
generally so good. Keep your policy document with you.
• Leave ample time for travel. Flights are often over-booked and passengers (even those who have
confirmed tickets) can sometimes find themselves without a seat. Arrive at least three hours before
an international departure. Connection flights can be subject to unforeseen delay. You should allow
extra funds to cover this contingency.
• Dress. While Indian attitudes to informal European styles of dress are generally tolerant, local
India Review 2017
Page 350 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
religious or other sensibilities should be borne in mind. If in doubt take local advice especially with
regard to topless bathing. Nude bathing is illegal, even in holiday resorts such as Goa.
• Safety on beaches. Exercise caution in the waters of India's coastline, which are subject to strong
under-currents.
• Currency, gold and electric goods smuggling. Don't risk it. Indian customs authorities have
powers to deal with suspected currency or gold smugglers. Don't be tempted by promises of easy
rewards. Those who are usually end up repenting in an Indian jail for 10 years.
• Don't get involved in drugs. The penalties for smuggling, possession and use are severe (10 - 20
years jail plus fine) and detention of up to three years awaiting trial. Second offenders can receive
the death sentence.
• Restricted areas. Don't venture into restricted areas without a permit. The main regions forbidden
to foreigners without permits are border areas between India and Pakistan (in Punjab and
Rajasthan) and several states in the far north-east of India.
• Photography. Don't photograph military installations. Photography at some civil airports is also
forbidden as they are shared with the Indian Air Force.
Note: This information is directly quoted from the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth
Office.
Sources: United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Business Culture: Information for Business Travelers
For general information on etiquette in India, please see our Cultural Etiquette page.
Sources: United States Department of State Commercial Guides
Online Resources Regarding Entry Requirements and Visas
Foreign Entry Requirements for Americans from the United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1765.html
India Review 2017
Page 351 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Visa Services for Non-Americans from the United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/visa/visa_1750.html
Visa Bulletins from the United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html
Visa Waivers from the United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html - new
Passport and Visa Information from the Government of the United Kingdom
http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/
Visa Information from the Government of Australia
http://www.dfat.gov.au/visas/index.html
Passport Information from the Government of Australia
https://www.passports.gov.au/Web/index.aspx
Passport Information from the Government of Canada
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/preparation_information/passport_passeport-eng.asp
Visa Information from the Government of Canada
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/preparation_information/visas-eng.asp
Online Visa Processing by Immigration Experts by VisaPro
http://www.visapro.com
Sources: United States Department of State, United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
Government of Australia: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Government of Canada
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Useful Online Resources for Travelers
Country-Specific Travel Information from United States
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1765.html
Travel Advice by Country from Government of United Kingdom
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/travel-advice-by-country/
General Travel Advice from Government of Australia
India Review 2017
Page 352 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/General
Travel Bulletins from the Government of Australia
http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/TravelBulletins/
Travel Tips from Government of Australia
http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/tips/index.html
Travel Checklist by Government of Canada
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/preparation_information/checklist_sommaire-eng.asp
Travel Checklist from Government of United Kingdom
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/staying-safe/checklist
Your trip abroad from United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/brochures/brochures_1225.html
A safe trip abroad from United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/safety/safety_1747.html
Tips for expatriates abroad from United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/travel/living/residing/residing_1235.html
Tips for students from United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/travel/living/studying/studying_1238.html http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/brochures/broc
Medical information for travelers from United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/health/health_1185.html
US Customs Travel information
http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/travel/
Sources: United States Department of State; United States Customs Department, United Kingdom
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Government of Australia;
Government of Canada: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Other Practical Online Resources for Travelers
Foreign Language Phrases for Travelers
http://www.travlang.com/languages/
India Review 2017
Page 353 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
http://www.omniglot.com/language/phrases/index.htm
World Weather Forecasts
http://www.intellicast.com/
http://www.wunderground.com/
http://www.worldweather.org/
Worldwide Time Zones, Map, World Clock
http://www.timeanddate.com/
http://www.worldtimezone.com/
International Airport Codes
http://www.world-airport-codes.com/
International Dialing Codes
http://www.kropla.com/dialcode.htm
http://www.countrycallingcodes.com/
International Phone Guide
http://www.kropla.com/phones.htm
International Mobile Phone Guide
http://www.kropla.com/mobilephones.htm
International Internet Café Search Engine
http://cybercaptive.com/
Global Internet Roaming
http://www.kropla.com/roaming.htm
World Electric Power Guide
http://www.kropla.com/electric.htm
http://www.kropla.com/electric2.htm
World Television Standards and Codes
http://www.kropla.com/tv.htm
International Currency Exchange Rates
http://www.xe.com/ucc/
Banking and Financial Institutions Across the World
http://www.123world.com/banks/index.html
India Review 2017
Page 354 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
International Credit Card or Automated Teller Machine (ATM) Locator
http://visa.via.infonow.net/locator/global/
http://www.mastercard.com/us/personal/en/cardholderservices/atmlocations/index.html
International Chambers of Commerce
http://www.123world.com/chambers/index.html
World Tourism Websites
http://123world.com/tourism/
Diplomatic and Consular Information
United States Diplomatic Posts Around the World
http://www.usembassy.gov/
United Kingdom Diplomatic Posts Around the World
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/embassies-and-posts/find-an-embassy-overseas/
Australia's Diplomatic Posts Around the World
http://www.dfat.gov.au/missions/
http://www.dfat.gov.au/embassies.html
Canada's Embassies and High Commissions
http://www.international.gc.ca/ciw-cdm/embassies-ambassades.aspx
Resources for Finding Embassies and other Diplomatic Posts Across the World
http://www.escapeartist.com/embassy1/embassy1.htm
Safety and Security
Travel Warnings by Country from Government of Australia
http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/
Travel Warnings and Alerts from United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/pa/pa_1766.html
Travel Reports and Warnings by Government of Canada
India Review 2017
Page 355 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/menu-eng.asp
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/updates_mise-a-jour-eng.asp
Travel Warnings from Government of United Kingdom
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/travel-advice-by-country/
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/travel-advice-by-country/?
action=noTravelAll#noTravelAll
Sources: United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the United States Department of
State, the Government of Canada: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
Government of Australia: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Other Safety and Security Online Resources for Travelers
United States Department of State Information on Terrorism
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/
Government of the United Kingdom Resource on the Risk of Terrorism
http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?
pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1044011304926
Government of Canada Terrorism Guide
http://www.international.gc.ca/crime/terrorism-terrorisme.aspx?lang=eng
Information on Terrorism by Government of Australia
http://www.dfat.gov.au/icat/index.html
FAA Resource on Aviation Safety
http://www.faasafety.gov/
In-Flight Safety Information for Air Travel (by British Airways crew trainer, Anna Warman)
http://www.warman.demon.co.uk/anna/inflight.html
Hot Spots: Travel Safety and Risk Information
http://www.airsecurity.com/hotspots/HotSpots.asp
Information on Human Rights
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/
Sources: The United States Department of State, the United States Customs Department, the
Government of Canada, the Government of United Kingdom, the Government of Australia, the
India Review 2017
Page 356 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Federal Aviation Authority, Anna Warman's In-flight Website, Hot Spots Travel and Risk
Information
Diseases/Health Data
Please Note: Most of the entry below constitutes a generalized health advisory, which a
traveler might find useful, regardless of a particular destination.
As a supplement, however, reader will also find below a list of countries flagged with current
health notices and alerts issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Please note that travel to the following countries, based on these 3 levels of warnings, is
ill-advised, or should be undertaken with the utmost precaution:
Level 3 (highest level of concern; avoid non-essential travel) -Guinea - Ebola
Liberia - Ebola
Nepal - Eathquake zone
Sierra Leone - Ebola
Level 2 (intermediate level of concern; use utmost caution during travel) -Cameroon - Polio
Somalia - Polio
Vanuatu - Tropical Cyclone zone
Throughout Middle East and Arabia Peninsula - MERS ((Middle East Respiratory
Syndrome)
Level 1 (standard level of concern; use practical caution during travel) India Review 2017
Page 357 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Australia - Ross River disease
Bosnia-Herzegovina - Measles
Brazil - Dengue Fever
Brazil - Malaria
Brazil - Zika
China - H7N9 Avian flu
Cuba - Cholera
Egypt - H5N1 Bird flu
Ethiopia - Measles
Germany - Measles
Japan - Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD)
Kyrgyzstan - Measles
Malaysia -Dengue Fever
Mexico - Chikungunya
Mexico - Hepatitis A
Nigeria - Meningitis
Philippines - Measles
Scotland - Mumps
Singapore - Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD)
South Korea - MERS ((Middle East Respiratory Syndrome)
Throughout Caribbean - Chikungunya
Throughout Central America - Chikungunya
Throughout South America - Chikungunya
Throughout Pacific Islands - Chikungunya
For specific information related to these health notices and alerts please see the CDC's
listing available at URL:
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices
Health Information for Travelers to India
Food and waterborne diseases are the number one cause of illness in travelers. Travelers' diarrhea
can be caused by viruses, bacteria, or parasites, which are found throughout the region and can
contaminate food or water. Infections may cause diarrhea and vomiting (E. coli, Salmonella,
cholera, and parasites), fever (typhoid fever and toxoplasmosis), or liver damage (hepatitis). Make
sure your food and drinking water are safe. (See below.)
Malaria is a preventable infection that can be fatal if left untreated. Prevent infection by taking
prescription antimalarial drugs and protecting yourself against mosquito bites (see below). Malaria
risk in this region exists in some urban and many rural areas, depending on elevation. For specific
India Review 2017
Page 358 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
locations, see Malaria Information for Travelers to the Indian Subcontinent. Most travelers to the
Indian Subcontinent at risk for malaria should take mefloquine to prevent malaria.
A certificate of yellow fever vaccination may be required for entry into certain of these countries if
you are coming from countries in tropical South America or sub-Saharan Africa. (There is no risk
for yellow fever in the Indian Subcontinent.) For detailed information, see Comprehensive Yellow
Fever Vaccination Requirements <http://www.cdc.gov/travel/yelfever.htm).>
Dengue, filariasis, Japanese encephalitis, leishmaniasis, and plague are diseases carried by insects
that also occur in this region. Protecting yourself against insect bites (see below) will help to
prevent these diseases.
If you visit the Himalayan Mountains, ascend gradually to allow time for your body to adjust to the
high altitude, which can cause insomnia, headaches, nausea, and altitude sickness. In addition, use
sunblock rated at least 15 SPF, because the risk of sunburn is greater at high altitudes.
Because motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of injury among travelers, walk and drive
defensively. Avoid travel at night if possible and always use seat belts.
CDC Recommends the Following Vaccines (as Appropriate for Age):
See your doctor at least 4-6 weeks before your trip to allow time for shots to take effect.
• Hepatitis A or immune globulin (IG).
• Hepatitis B, if you might be exposed to blood (for example, health-care workers), have sexual
contact with the local population, stay longer than 6 months, or be exposed through medical
treatment.
• Japanese encephalitis, only if you plan to visit rural areas for 4 weeks or more, except under
special circumstances, such as a known outbreak of Japanese encephalitis.
• Rabies, if you might be exposed to wild or domestic animals through your work or recreation.
• Typhoid vaccination is particularly important because of the presence of S. typhi strains resistant
to multiple antibiotics in this region.
• As needed, booster doses for tetanus-diphtheria and measles, and a one-time dose of polio for
adults. Hepatitis B vaccine is now recommended for all infants and for children ages 11-12 years
who did not receive the series as infants.
India Review 2017
Page 359 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
To Stay Healthy, Do:
• Wash hands often with soap and water.
• Drink only bottled or boiled water, or carbonated (bubbly) drinks in cans or bottles. Avoid tap
water, fountain drinks, and ice cubes. If this is not possible, make water safer by BOTH filtering
through an "absolute 1-micron or less" filter AND adding iodine tablets to the filtered water.
"Absolute 1-micron filters" are found in camping/outdoor supply stores.
• Eat only thoroughly cooked food or fruits and vegetables you have peeled yourself. Remember:
boil it, cook it, peel it, or forget it.
• If you are going to visit areas where there is risk for malaria, take your malaria prevention
medication before, during, and after travel, as directed. (See your doctor for a prescription.)
• Protect yourself from insects by remaining in well-screened areas, using repellents (applied
sparingly at 4-hour intervals) and permethrin-impregnated mosquito nets, and wearing long-sleeved
shirts and long pants from dusk through dawn.
• To prevent fungal and parasitic infections, keep feet clean and dry, and do not go barefoot.
• Always use latex condoms to reduce the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
To Avoid Getting Sick:
• Don't eat food purchased from street vendors.
• Don't drink beverages with ice.
• Don't eat dairy products unless you know they have been pasteurized.
• Don't share needles with anyone.
• Don't handle animals (especially monkeys, dogs, and cats), to avoid bites and serious diseases
(including rabies and plague). (For more information, please see the Animal-Associated Hazards on
the Making Travel Safe page at URL <http://www.cdc.gov/travel/safety.htm.)>
• Don't swim in fresh water. Salt water is usually safer. (For more information, please see the
Swimming Precautions on the Making Travel Safe page.)
What You Need To Bring with You:
India Review 2017
Page 360 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
• Long-sleeved shirt and long pants to wear while outside whenever possible, to prevent illnesses
carried by insects (e.g., malaria, dengue, filariasis, leishmaniasis, and onchocerciasis).
• Insect repellent containing DEET (diethylmethyltoluamide), in 30%-35% strength for adults and
6%-10% for children. Travelers who are not in air-conditioned or well-screened housing should
purchase a bed net impregnated with the insecticide permethrin. (Bed nets can be purchased in
camping or military supply stores.)
• Over-the-counter antidiarrheal medicine to take if you have diarrhea.
• Iodine tablets and water filters to purify water if bottled water is not available. See Do's above for
more detailed information about water filters.
• Sunblock, sunglasses, hat.
• Prescription medications: make sure you have enough to last during your trip, as well as a copy
of the prescription(s).
After You Return Home:
If you have visited an area where there is risk for malaria, continue taking your malaria medication
weekly for 4 weeks after you leave the area.
If you become ill after travel-even as long as a year after your trip-tell your doctor the areas you
have visited.
For More Information:
Ask your doctor or check the CDC web sites for more information about how to protect yourself
against diseases that occur in the Indian Subcontinent, such as:
For information about diseasesCarried by Insects
Dengue, Japanese encephalitis Malaria, Plague
Carried in Food or Water
Cholera, Escherichia coli, diarrhea, Hepatitis A, Typhoid Fever
Person-to-Person Contact
Hepatitis B, HIV/AIDS
India Review 2017
Page 361 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
For more information about these and other diseases, please check the Diseases
(<http://www.cdc.gov/travel/diseases.htm)> s e c t i o n a n d t h e H e a l t h T o p i c s A - Z
(<http://www.cdc.gov/health/diseases.htm).>
Note:
India is located in the Indian subcontinent health region.
Sources:
The Center for Disease Control Destinations Website:
<http://www.cdc.gov/travel/destinat.htm>
India Review 2017
Page 362 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Chapter 6
Environmental Overview
India Review 2017
Page 363 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Environmental Issues
General Overview:
In terms of environmental issues, India 's major challenges are directly attributable to its extremely
high population density. In particular, agricultural activities, such as overgrazing, short cultivation
cycles, slash and burn practices, destructive logging practices, and deforestation of timber reserves
for fuel, all contribute conjointly to the decimation of the subcontinent's environmental system.
Current Issues:
-Deforestation
-Soil erosion
-Overgrazing
-Desertification
-Threats to bio-diversity, in particular specific forms of wildlife such as the Bengali Tiger
-Threats to the marine eco-systems, including the destruction of coral reefs
-Air pollution from industrial effluents and vehicle emissions
-Water pollution from raw sewage and runoff of agricultural pesticides
-Non-potable water throughout the country
-Over-population and concomitant strain on natural resources
-Energy-related environmental problems, such as chemical and oil pollution
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mtc):
501.5
Country Rank (GHG output):
5th
Natural Hazards:
India Review 2017
Page 364 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
-droughts
-flash floods
-severe thunderstorms
-earthquakes
Environmental Policy
Regulation and Jurisdiction:
The regulation and protection of the environment in India is under the jurisdiction of the following:
Ministry of Forests and Environment
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Ocean Development
Ministry of Water Resources.
Major Non-Governmental Organizations:
Asian Elephant Conservation Center (AECC)
Assam Valley Wildlife Society
Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS)
Center for Science and Environment (CSE)
Centre for Wildlife Studies
Data Center for Natural Resources (DCNR)
Ecosystem Research Group
Indian Herpetological Society (HIS)
Madras Crocodile Bank
Irula Tribal Women's Welfare Society
National Women's Welfare Centre
Peace and Disarmament Society of Kerala
Ranthambhore Foundation (RF)
M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation's Centre for Research on Sustainable Agricultural
and Rural Development
Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI)
WILD's Society for Conservation of Forest and Wildlife
India Review 2017
Page 365 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
World Wide Fund for Nature-India.
International Environmental Accords:
Party to:
Antarctic-Environmental Protocol
Antarctic-Marine Living Resources
Antarctic Treaty, Biodiversity
Climate Change
Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol
Desertification
Endangered Species
Environmental Modification
Hazardous Wastes
Law of the Sea
Nuclear Test Ban
Ozone Layer Protection
Ship Pollution
Tropical Timber 83
Tropical Timber 94
Wetlands
Whaling
Signed but not ratified:
None
Kyoto Protocol Status (year ratified):
2002
India Review 2017
Page 366 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Greenhouse Gas Ranking
Greenhouse Gas Ranking
GHG Emissions Rankings
Country
Rank
Country
1
United States
2
China
4
Russia
5
Japan
6
India
7
Germany
8
United Kingdom
9
Canada
10
Korea, South
11
Italy
12
Mexico
13
France
India Review 2017
Page 367 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
14
South Africa
15
Iran
16
Indonesia
17
Australia
18
Spain
19
Brazil
20
Saudi Arabia
21
Ukraine
22
Poland
23
Taiwan
24
Turkey
25
Thailand
26
Netherlands
27
Kazakhstan
28
Malaysia
29
Egypt
30
Venezuela
31
Argentina
Page 368 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
32
Uzbekistan
33
Czech Republic
34
Belgium
35
Pakistan
36
Romania
37
Greece
38
United Arab Emirates
39
Algeria
40
Nigeria
41
Austria
42
Iraq
43
Finland
44
Philippines
45
Vietnam
46
Korea, North
47
Israel
48
Portugal
49
Colombia
Page 369 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
50
Belarus
51
Kuwait
52
Hungary
53
Chile
54
Denmark
55
Serbia & Montenegro
56
Sweden
57
Syria
58
Libya
59
Bulgaria
60
Singapore
61
Switzerland
62
Ireland
63
Turkmenistan
64
Slovakia
65
Bangladesh
66
Morocco
67
New Zealand
Page 370 of 440 pages
Country OverView
India Review 2017
Pending
68
Oman
69
Qatar
70
Azerbaijan
71
Norway
72
Peru
73
Cuba
74
Ecuador
75
Trinidad & Tobago
76
Croatia
77
Tunisia
78
Dominican Republic
79
Lebanon
80
Estonia
81
Yemen
82
Jordan
83
Slovenia
84
Bahrain
85
Angola
Page 371 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
86
Bosnia & Herzegovina
87
Lithuania
88
Sri Lanka
89
Zimbabwe
90
Bolivia
91
Jamaica
92
Guatemala
93
Luxembourg
94
Myanmar
95
Sudan
96
Kenya
97
Macedonia
98
Mongolia
99
Ghana
100
Cyprus
101
Moldova
102
Latvia
103
El Salvador
India Review 2017
Page 372 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
104
Brunei
105
Honduras
106
Cameroon
107
Panama
108
Costa Rica
109
Cote d'Ivoire
110
Kyrgyzstan
111
Tajikistan
112
Ethiopia
113
Senegal
114
Uruguay
115
Gabon
116
Albania
117
Nicaragua
118
Botswana
119
Paraguay
120
Tanzania
121
Georgia
India Review 2017
Page 373 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
122
Armenia
123
Congo, RC
124
Mauritius
125
Nepal
126
Mauritius
127
Nepal
128
Mauritania
129
Malta
130
Papua New Guinea
131
Zambia
132
Suriname
133
Iceland
134
Togo
135
Benin
136
Uganda
137
Bahamas
138
Haiti
139
Congo, DRC
India Review 2017
Page 374 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
140
Guyana
141
Mozambique
142
Guinea
143
Equatorial Guinea
144
Laos
145
Barbados
146
Niger
147
Fiji
148
Burkina Faso
149
Malawi
150
Swaziland
151
Belize
152
Afghanistan
153
Sierra Leone
154
Eritrea
155
Rwanda
156
Mali
157
Seychelles
India Review 2017
Page 375 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
158
Cambodia
159
Liberia
160
Bhutan
161
Maldives
162
Antigua & Barbuda
163
Djibouti
164
Saint Lucia
165
Gambia
166
Guinea-Bissau
167
Central African Republic
168
Palau
169
Burundi
170
Grenada
171
Lesotho
172
Saint Vincent & the Grenadines
173
Solomon Islands
174
Samoa
175
Cape Verde
India Review 2017
Page 376 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
176
Nauru
177
Dominica
178
Saint Kitts & Nevis
179
Chad
180
Tonga
181
Sao Tome & Principe
182
Comoros
183
Vanuatu
185
Kiribati
Not Ranked
Andorra
Not Ranked
East Timor
Not Ranked
Holy See
Not Ranked
Hong Kong
Not Ranked
Liechtenstein
Not Ranked
Marshall Islands
Not Ranked
Micronesia
Not Ranked
Monaco
Not Ranked
San Marino
India Review 2017
Page 377 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Not Ranked
Somalia
Not Ranked
Tuvalu
* European Union is ranked 3rd
Cook Islands are ranked 184th
Niue is ranked 186th
Global Environmental Snapshot
Introduction
The countries of the world face many environmental challenges in common. Nevertheless, the
nature and intensity of problem vary from region to region, as do various countries' respective
capacities, in terms of affluence and infrastructure, to remediate threats to environmental quality.
Consciousness of perils affecting the global environment came to the fore in the last third or so of
the 20th century has continued to intensify well into the new millennium. According to the United
Nations Environment Programme, considerable environmental progress has been made at the level
of institutional developments, international cooperation accords, and public participation.
Approximately two-dozen international environmental protection accords with global implications
have been promulgated since the late 1970s under auspices of the United Nations and other
international organizations, together with many additional regional agreements. Attempts to address
and rectify environmental problems take the form of legal frameworks, economic instruments,
environmentally sound technologies and cleaner production processes as well as conservation
efforts. Environmental impact assessments have increasingly been applied across the globe.
Environmental degradation affects the quality, or aesthetics, of human life, but it also displays
potential to undermine conditions necessary for the sustainability of human life. Attitudes toward
the importance of environmental protection measures reflect ambivalence derived from this
bifurcation. On one hand, steps such as cleaning up pollution, dedicating parkland, and suchlike,
are seen as embellishments undertaken by wealthy societies already assured they can successfully
perform those functions deemed, ostensibly, more essential-for instance, public health and
education, employment and economic development. On the other hand, in poorer countries,
activities causing environmental damage-for instance the land degradation effects of unregulated
logging, slash-and-burn agriculture, overgrazing, and mining-can seem justified insofar as such
India Review 2017
Page 378 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
activities provide incomes and livelihoods.
Rapid rates of resource depletion are associated with poverty and high population growth,
themselves correlated, whereas consumption per capita is much higher in the most developed
countries, despite these nations' recent progress in energy efficiency and conservation. It is
impossible to sequester the global environmental challenge from related economic, social and
political challenges.
First-tier industrialized countries have recently achieved measurable decreases in environmental
pollution and the rate of resource depletion, a success not matched in middle income and
developing countries. It is believed that the discrepancy is due to the fact that industrialized
countries have more developed infrastructures to accommodate changes in environmental policy, to
apply environmental technologies, and to invest in public education. The advanced industrialized
countries incur relatively lower costs in alleviating environmental problems, in comparison to
developing countries, since in the former even extensive environmental programs represent a rather
minuscule percentage of total expenditures. Conversely, budget constraints, lagged provision of
basic services to the population, and other factors such as debt service and militarization may
preclude institution of minimal environmental protection measures in the poorest countries.
A synopsis for the current situation facing each region of the world follows:
Regional Synopsis: Africa
The African continent, the world's second-largest landmass, encompasses many of the world's
least developed countries. By global standards, urbanization is comparatively low but rising at a
rapid rate. More heavily industrialized areas at the northern and southern ends of the continent
experience the major share of industrial pollution. In other regions the most serious environmental
problems typically stem from inefficient subsistence farming methods and other forms of land
degradation, which have affected an increasingly extensive area under pressure of a widely
impoverished, fast-growing population. Africa's distribution of natural resources is very uneven. It
is the continent at greatest risk of desertification, especially in the Sahel region at the edge of the
Sahara but also in other dry-range areas. Yet at the same time, Africa also harbors some of the
earth's richest and most diverse biological zones.
Key Points:
Up to half a billion hectares of African land are moderately to severely degraded, an occurrence
reflecting short-fallow shifting cultivation and overgrazing as well as a climatic pattern of recurrent
droughts.
India Review 2017
Page 379 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Soil degradation is severe along the expanse directly south of the Sahara, from the west to the east
coasts. Parts of southern Africa, central-eastern Africa, and the neighboring island of Madagascar
suffer from serious soil degradation as well.
Africa contains about 17 percent of the world's forest cover, concentrated in the tropical belt of the
continent. Many of the forests, however, are severely depleted, with an estimated 70 percent
showing some degree of degradation.
Population growth has resulted in continuing loss of arable land, as inefficient subsistence farming
techniques affect increasingly extensive areas. Efforts to implement settled, sustainable agriculture
have met with some recent success, but much further progress in this direction is needed.
Especially in previously uninhabited forestlands, concern over deforestation is intensifying.
By contrast, the African savanna remains the richest grassland in the world, supporting a
substantial concentration of animal and plant life. Wildlife parks are sub-Saharan Africa's greatest
tourist attraction, and with proper management-giving local people a stake in conservation and
controlling the pace of development-could greatly enhance African economies.
Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of northern, southern and eastern Africa are
currently threatened, while the biological diversity in Mauritania and Madagascar is even further
compromised with over 20 percent of the mammal species in these two countries currently under
threat.
With marine catch trends increasing from 500,000 metric tons in the 1950s to over 3,000,000
metric tons by 2000, there was increasing concern about the reduction in fisheries and marine life,
should this trend continue unabated.
Water resource vulnerability is a major concern in northeastern Africa, and a moderate concern
across the rest of the continent. An exception is central Africa, which has plentiful water supplies.
Many Africans lack adequate access to resources, not just (if at all) because the resources are
unevenly distributed geographically, but also through institutional failures such as faulty land tenure
systems or political upheaval. The quality of Africa's natural resources, despite their spotty
distribution, is in fact extraordinarily rich. The infrastructure needed to protect and benefit from
this natural legacy, however, is largely lacking.
Regional Synopsis: Asia and the Pacific
Asia-earth's largest landmass-and the many large and nearly innumerable small islands lying off its
Pacific shore display extraordinarily contrasting landscapes, levels of development, and degrees of
India Review 2017
Page 380 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
environmental stress. In the classification used here, the world's smallest continent, Australia, is
also included in the Asia-Pacific region.
The Asia-Pacific region is home to 9 of the world's 14 largest urban areas, and as energy use for
utilities, industry and transport increases in developing economies, urban centers are subject to
worsening air quality. Intense population density in places such as Bangladesh or Hong Kong is the
quintessential image many people have of Asia, yet vast desert areas such as the Gobi and the
world's highest mountain range, the Himalayas, span the continent as well. Forested areas in
Southeast Asia and the islands of Indonesia and the Philippines were historically prized for their
tropical hardwood, but in many places this resource is now severely depleted. Low-lying small
island states are extremely vulnerable to the effects of global warming, both rising sea levels and an
anticipated increase in cyclones.
Key Points:
Asian timber reserves are forecast to be depleted in the next 40 years. Loss of natural forest is
irreversible in some areas, but plantation programs to restore tree cover may ameliorate a portion
of the resulting land degradation.
Increased usage of fossil fuels in China and other parts of southern Asia is projected to result in a
marked increase in emissions, especially in regard to carbon dioxide. The increased usage of energy
has led to a marked upsurge in air pollution across the region.
Acidification is an emerging problem regionally, with sulfur dioxide emissions expected to triple by
2010 if the current growth rate is sustained. China, Thailand, India, and Korea seem to be
suffering from particularly high rates of acid deposition. By contrast, Asia's most highly developed
economy, Japan, has effected substantial improvements in its environmental indicators.
Water pollution in the Pacific is an urgent concern since up to 70 percent of the water discharged
into the region's waters receives no treatment. Additionally, the disposal of solid wastes, in like
manner, poses a major threat in a region with many areas of high population density.
The Asia-Pacific region is the largest expanse of the world's land that is adversely affected by soil
degradation.
The region around Australia reportedly suffers the largest degree of ozone depletion.
The microstates of the Pacific suffer land loss due to global warming, and the consequent rise in
the levels of ocean waters. A high-emissions scenario and anthropogenic climate impact at the
upper end of the currently predicted range would probably force complete evacuation of the
lowest-elevation islands sometime in this century.
India Review 2017
Page 381 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The species-rich reefs surrounding Southeast Asia are highly vulnerable to the deleterious effects of
coastal development, land-based pollution, over-fishing and exploitative fishing methods, as well as
marine pollution from oil spills and other activities.
With marine catch trends increasing from 5,000,000 metric tons in the 1950s to over 20,000,000
metric tons by 2000, there was increasing concern about the reduction in fisheries and marine life,
should this trend continue unabated.
Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of China and south-east Asia are currently
threatened, while the biological diversity in India, Japan, Australia, the Philippines, Indonesia and
parts of Malaysia is even further compromised with over 20 percent of the mammal species in
these countries currently under threat.
Water resource vulnerability is a serious concern in areas surrounding the Indian subcontinent.
Regional Synopsis: Central Asia
The Central Asian republics, formerly in the Soviet Union, experience a range of environmental
problems as the result of poorly executed agricultural, industrial, and nuclear programs during the
Soviet era. Relatively low population densities are the norm, especially since upon the breakup of
the U.S.S.R. many ethnic Russians migrated back to European Russia. In this largely semi-arid
region, drought, water shortages, and soil salinization pose major challenges.
Key Points:
The use of agricultural pesticides, such as DDT and other chemicals, has contributed to the
contamination of soil and groundwater throughout the region.
Land and soil degradation, and in particular, increased salinization, is mostly attributable to faulty
irrigation practices.
Significant desertification is also a problem in the region.
Air pollution is prevalent, mostly due to use of low octane automobile fuel.
Industrial pollution of the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea, as a result of industrial effluents as well as
mining and metal production, presents a challenge to the countries bordering these bodies of water.
One of the most severe environmental problems in the region is attributable to the several billion
India Review 2017
Page 382 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
tons of hazardous materials stored in landfills across Central Asia.
Uzbekistan's particular problem involves the contraction of the Aral Sea, which has decreased in
size by a third, as a consequence of river diversions and poor irrigation practices. The effect has
been the near-total biological destruction of that body of water.
Kazakhstan, as a consequence of being the heartland of the former Soviet Union's nuclear
program, has incurred a high of cancerous malignancies, biogenetic abnormalities and radioactive
contamination.
While part of the Soviet Union, the republics in the region experienced very high levels of
greenhouse gas emissions, as a consequence of rapid industrialization using cheap but dirty energy
sources, especially coal.
By contrast, however, there have recently been substantial reductions in the level of greenhouse
gas emissions, especially those attributable to coal burning, with further decreases anticipated over
the next decade. These changes are partially due to the use of cleaner energy technologies, such as
natural gas, augmented by governmental commitment to improving environmental standards.
Regional Synopsis: Europe
Western Europe underwent dramatic transformation of its landscape, virtually eliminating largescale natural areas, during an era of rapid industrialization, which intensified upon its recovery from
World War II. In Eastern Europe and European Russia, intensive land development has been less
prevalent, so that some native forests and other natural areas remain. Air and water pollution from
use of dirty fuels and industrial effluents, however, are more serious environmental problems in
Eastern than in Western Europe, though recent trends show improvement in many indicators. Acid
rain has inflicted heavy environmental damage across much of Europe, particularly on forests.
Europe and North America are the only regions in which water usage for industry exceeds that for
agriculture, although in Mediterranean nations agriculture is the largest water consumer.
Key Points:
Europe contributes 36 percent of the world's chlorofluorocarbon emissions, 30 percent of carbon
dioxide emissions, and 25 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.
Sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions are the cause of 30 to 50 percent of Central and Eastern
Europe's deforestation.
Acid rain has been an environmental concern for decades and continues to be a challenge in parts
India Review 2017
Page 383 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
of Western Europe.
Overexploitation of up to 60 percent of Europe's groundwater presents a problem in industrial and
urban areas.
With marine catch trends increasing from 5,000,000 metric tons in the 1950s to over 20,000,000
metric tons by 2000, there was increasing concern about the reduction in fisheries and marine life,
should this trend continue unabated.
Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of western Europe, Eastern Europe and Russia are
currently threatened, while the biological diversity on the Iberian Peninsula is even further
compromised with over 40 percent of the mammal species in this region currently under threat. As
a result, there has been a 10 percent increase in protected areas of Europe.
A major environmental issue for Europe involves the depletion of various already endangered or
threatened species, and most significantly, the decline of fish stocks. Some estimates suggest that
up to 50 percent of the continent's fish species may be considered endangered species. Coastal
fisheries have been over-harvested, resulting in catch limits or moratoriums on many commercially
important fish species.
Fortunately, in the last few years, these policies have started to yield measurable results with
decreasing trends in marine fish catch.
Recently, most European countries have adopted cleaner production technologies, and alternative
methods of waste disposal, including recycling.
The countries of Eastern Europe have made air quality a major environmental priority. This is
exemplified by the Russian Federation's addition to the 1995 "Berlin Mandate" (transnational
legislation based on resolutions of the Rio Earth Summit) compelling nations to promote "carbon
sinks" to absorb greenhouse gases.
On a relative basis, when compared with the degree of industrial emissions emitted by many
Eastern European countries until the late 1980s, there has been some marked increase in air quality
in the region, as obsolete plants are closed and a transition to cleaner fuels and more efficient
energy use takes place.
Regional Synopsis: The Middle and Near East
Quite possibly, the Middle East will exemplify the adage that, as the 20th century was a century
India Review 2017
Page 384 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
fixated on oil, the 21st century will be devoted to critical decisions about water. Many (though far
from all) nations in the Middle East rank among those countries with the largest oil and gas
reserves, but water resources are relatively scarce throughout this predominantly dry region.
Effects of global warming may cause moderately high elevation areas that now typically receive
winter "snowpack" to experience mainly rain instead, which would further constrain dry-season
water availability. The antiquities and religious shrines of the region render it a great magnet for
tourism, which entails considerable economic growth potential but also intensifies stresses on the
environment.
Key Points:
Water resource vulnerability is a serious concern across the entire region. The increased usage of,
and further demand for water, has exacerbated long-standing water scarcity in the region. For
instance, river diversions and industrial salt works have caused the Dead Sea to shrink by one-third
from its original surface area, with further declines expected.
The oil industry in the region contributes to water pollution in the Persian Gulf, as a result of oil
spills, which have averaged 1.2 million barrels of oil spilt per year (some sources suggest that this
figure is understated). The consequences are severe because even after oil spills have been cleaned
up, environmental damage to the food webs and ecosystems of marine life will persist for a
prolonged period.
The region's coastal zone is considered one of the most fragile and endangered ecosystems of the
world. Land reclamation, shoreline construction, discharge of industrial effluents, and tourism
(such as diving in the Red Sea) contribute to widespread coastal damage.
Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of the Middle East are currently threatened.
Since the 1980s, 11 percent of the region's natural forest has been depleted.
Regional Synopsis: Latin America and the Caribbean
The Latin American and Caribbean region is characterized by exceedingly diverse landforms that
have generally seen high rates of population growth and economic development in recent decades.
The percentage of inhabitants residing in urban areas is quite high at 73.4 percent; the region
includes the megacities of Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and Rio de Janeiro. The region also includes the
world's second-highest mountain range, the Andes; significant expanses of desert and grassland; the
coral reefs of the Caribbean Sea; and the world's largest contiguous tropical forest in the Amazon
basin. Threats to the latter from subsistence and commercial farming, mineral exploitation and
timbering are well publicized. Nevertheless, of eight countries worldwide that still retain at least 70
India Review 2017
Page 385 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
percent of their original forest cover, six are in Latin America. The region accounts for nearly half
(48.3 percent) of the world's greenhouse gas emissions derived from land clearing, but as yet a
comparatively minuscule share (4.3 percent) of such gases from industrial sources.
Key Points:
Although Latin America is one of the most biologically diverse regions of the world, this
biodiversity is highly threatened, as exemplified by the projected extinction of up to 100,000
species in the next few decades. Much of this loss will be concentrated in the Amazon area,
although the western coastline of South America will also suffer significant depletion of biological
diversity. The inventory of rainforest species with potentially useful commercial or medical
applications is incomplete, but presumed to include significant numbers of such species that may
become extinct before they are discovered and identified.
Up to 50 percent of the region's grazing land has lost its soil fertility as a result of soil erosion,
salinization, alkalinization and overgrazing.
The Caribbean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean have all been contaminated by
agricultural wastes, which are discharged into streams that flow into these major waters. Water
pollution derived from phosphorous, nitrates and pesticides adversely affects fish stocks,
contributes to oxygen depletion and fosters overgrowth of aquatic vegetation. Marine life will
continue to be severely compromised as a result of these conditions.
Due to industrial development in the region, many beaches of eastern Latin America and the
Caribbean suffer from tar deposits.
Most cities in the region lack adequate sewage treatment facilities, and rapid migration of the rural
poor into the cities is widening the gap between current infrastructure capacity and the much
greater level needed to provide satisfactory basic services.
The rainforest region of the Amazon Basin suffers from dangerously high levels of deforestation,
which may be a significant contributory factor to global warming or "the greenhouse effect." In the
late 1990s and into the new millennium, the rate of deforestation was around 20 million acres of
rainforest being destroyed annually.
Deforestation on the steep rainforest slopes of Caribbean islands contributes to soil erosion and
landslides, both of which then result in heavy sedimentation of nearby river systems. When these
sedimented rivers drain into the sea and coral reefs, they poison the coral tissues, which are vital to
the maintenance of the reef ecosystem. The result is marine degradation and nutrient depletion.
Jamaica's coral reefs have never quite recovered from the effects of marine degradation.
India Review 2017
Page 386 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
The Southern Cone of Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay) suffers the
effects of greatly increased ultraviolet-B radiation, as a consequence of more intense ozone
depletion in the southern hemisphere.
Water resource vulnerability is an increasingly major concern in the northwestern portion of South
America.
Regional Synopsis: North America
North American nations, in particular the United States and Canada, rank among the world's most
highly developed industrial economies-a fact which has generated significant pollution problems,
but also financial resources and skills that have enabled many problems to be corrected. Although
efforts to promote energy efficiency, recycling, and suchlike have helped ease strains on the
environment in a part of the world where per capita consumption levels are high, sprawling land
development patterns and recent preferences many households have demonstrated for larger
vehicles have offset these advances.
Meanwhile, a large portion of North America's original forest cover has been lost, though in many
cases replaced by productive second-growth woodland. In recent years, attitudes toward best use
of the region's remaining natural or scenic areas seem to be shifting toward recreation and
preservation and away from resource extraction. With increasing attention on the energy scarcity in
the United States, however, there is speculation that this shift may be short-lived. Indeed, the
energy shortage on the west coast of the United States and associated calls for energy exploration,
indicate a possible retrenchment toward resource extraction. At the same time, however, it has also
served to highlight the need for energy conservation as well as alternative energy sources.
Despite generally successful anti-pollution efforts, various parts of the region continue to suffer
significant air, water and land degradation from industrial, vehicular, and agricultural emissions and
runoff. Mexico, as a middle-income country, displays environmental problems characteristic of a
developing economy, including forest depletion, pollution from inefficient industrial processes and
dirty fuels, and lack of sufficient waste-treatment infrastructure.
Key Points:
Because of significantly greater motor vehicle usage in the United States (U.S.) than in the rest of
the world, the U.S. contribution of urban air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, especially
carbon dioxide, is disproportionately high in relation to its population.
Acid rain is an enduring issue of contention in the northeastern part of the United States, on the
border with Canada.
India Review 2017
Page 387 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Mexico's urban areas suffer extreme air pollution from carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, and other toxic air pollutants. Emissions controls on vehicles are in their infancy, compared
to analogous regulations in the U.S.
The cities of Mexico, including those on the U.S. border, also discharge large quantities of
untreated or poorly treated sewage, though officials are currently planning infrastructure upgrades.
Deforestation is noteworthy in various regions of the U.S., especially along the northwest coastline.
Old growth forests have been largely removed, but in the northeastern and upper midwestern
sections of the United States, evidence suggests that the current extent of tree cover probably
surpasses the figure for the beginning of the 20th century.
Extreme weather conditions in the last few years have resulted in a high level of soil erosion along
the north coast of California; in addition, the coastline itself has shifted substantially due to soil
erosion and concomitant landslides.
Agricultural pollution-including nitrate contamination of well water, nutrient runoff to waterways,
and pesticide exposure-is significant in various areas. Noteworthy among affected places are
California's Central Valley, extensive stretches of the Midwest, and land in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
Inland waterways, especially around the Great Lakes, have substantially improved their water
quality, due to concentrated efforts at reducing water pollution by governmental, commercial and
community representatives. Strict curbs on industrial effluents and near-universal implementation
of sewage treatment are the chief factors responsible for this improvement.
A major environmental issue for Canada and the United States involves the depletion of various
already endangered or threatened species, and most significantly, the decline of fish stocks. Coastal
fisheries have been over-harvested, resulting in catch limits or moratoriums on many commercially
important fish species. In the last few years, these policies have started to yield measurable results
with decreasing trends in marine fish catch.
Due to the decay of neighboring ecosystems in Central America and the Caribbean, the sea
surrounding Florida has become increasingly sedimented, contributing to marine degradation,
nutrient depletion of the ecosystem, depletion of fish stocks, and diseases to coral species in
particular.
Polar Regions
India Review 2017
Page 388 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Key Points:
The significant rise in sea level, amounting 10 to 25 centimeters in the last 100 years, is due to the
melting of the Arctic ice sheets, and is attributed to global warming.
The Antarctic suffers from a significant ozone hole, first detected in 1976. By 1985, a British
scientific team reported a 40 percent decrease in usual regeneration rates of the ozone. Because a
sustained increase in the amount of ultraviolet-B radiation would have adverse consequences upon
all planetary life, recent environmental measures have been put into effect, aimed at reversing
ozone depletion. These measures are projected to garner significant results by 2050.
Due to air and ocean currents, the Arctic is a sink for toxic releases originally discharged thousands
of miles away. Arctic wildlife and Canada's Inuit population have higher bodily levels of
contaminants such as PCB and dioxin than those found in people and animals in much of the rest
of the world.
Global Environmental Concepts
1. Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases
The Greenhouse Effect:
In the early 19th century, the French physicist, Jean Fourier, contended that the earth's atmosphere
functions in much the same way as the glass of a greenhouse, thus describing what is now
understood as the "greenhouse effect." Put simply, the "greenhouse effect" confines some of the
sun's energy to the earth, preserving some of the planet's warmth, rather than allowing it to flow
back into space. In so doing, all kinds of life forms can flourish on earth. Thus, the "greenhouse
effect" is necessary to sustain and preserve life forms and ecosystems on earth.
In the late 19th century, a Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, noticed that human activities, such
as the burning of coal and other fossil fuels for heat, and the removal of forested lands for urban
development, led to higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, in
the atmosphere. This increase in the levels of greenhouse gases was believed to advance the
"greenhouse effect" exponentially, and might be related to the trend in global warming.
India Review 2017
Page 389 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
In the wake of the Industrial Revolution, after industrial development took place on a large scale
and the total human population burgeoned simultaneously with industrialization, the resulting
increase in greenhouse gas emissions could, many scientists believe, be significant enough to have
some bearing on climate. Indeed, many studies in recent years support the idea that there is a
linkage between human activities and global warming, although there is less consensus on the
extent to which this linkage may be relevant to environmental concerns.
That said, some scientists have argued that temperature fluctuations have existed throughout the
evolution of the planet. Indeed, Dr. S. Fred Singer, the president of the Science and Environment
Policy Project has noted that 3,000-year-old geological records of ocean sediment reveal changes
in the surface temperature of the ocean. Hence, it is possible that climate variability is merely a
normal fact of the planet's evolution. Yet even skeptics as to anthropogenic factors concur that any
substantial changes in global temperatures would likely have an effect upon the earth's ecosystems,
as well as the life forms that inhabit them.
The Relationship Between Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases:
A large number of climatologists believe that the increase in atmospheric concentrations of
"greenhouse gas emissions," mostly a consequence of human activities such as the burning of fossil
fuels, are contributing to global warming. The cause notwithstanding, the planet has reportedly
warmed 0.3°C to 0.6°C over the last century. Indeed, each year during the 1990s was one of the
very warmest in the 20th century, with the mean surface temperature for 1999 being the fifth
warmest on record since 1880.
In early 2000, a panel of atmospheric scientists for the National Research Council concluded in a
report that global warming was, indeed, a reality. While the panel, headed by Chairman John
Wallace, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, stated that it
remained unclear whether human activities have contributed to the earth's increasing temperatures,
it was apparent that global warming exists.
In 2001, following a request for further study by the incoming Bush administration in the United
States, the National Academy of Sciences again confirmed that global warming had been in
existence for the last 20 years. The study also projected an increase in temperature between 2.5
degrees and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. Furthermore, the study found the leading
cause of global warming to be emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, and it
noted that greenhouse gas accumulations in the earth's atmosphere was a result of human activities.
Within the scientific community, the controversy regarding has centered on the difference between
surface air and upper air temperatures. Information collected since 1979 suggests that while the
earth's surface temperature has increased by about a degree in the past century, the atmospheric
temperature five miles above the earth's surface has indicated very little increase. Nevertheless, the
India Review 2017
Page 390 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
panel stated that this discrepancy in temperature between surface and upper air does not invalidate
the conclusion that global warming is taking place. Further, the panel noted that natural events,
such as volcanic eruptions, can decrease the temperature in the upper atmosphere.
The major consequences of global warming potentially include the melting of the polar ice caps,
which, in turn, contribute to the rise in sea levels. Many islands across the globe have already
experienced a measurable loss of land as a result. Because global warming may increase the rate of
evaporation, increased precipitation, in the form of stronger and more frequent storm systems, is
another potential outcome. Other consequences of global warming may include the introduction
and proliferation of new infectious diseases, loss of arable land (referred to as "desertification"),
destructive changes to existing ecosystems, loss of biodiversity and the isolation of species, and
concomitant adverse changes in the quality of human life.
International Policy Development in Regard to Global Warming:
Regardless of what the precise nature of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and
global warming may be, it seems that there is some degree of a connection between the
phenomena. Any substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and global warming trends will
likely involve systematic changes in industrial operations, the use of advanced energy sources and
technologies, as well as global cooperation in implementing and regulating these transformations.
In this regard, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
stipulated the following objectives:
1. To stabilize "greenhouse gas" concentrations within the atmosphere, in such a manner that
would preclude hazardous anthropogenic intervention into the existing biosphere and ecosystems of
the world. This stabilization process would facilitate the natural adaptation of ecosystems to
changes in climate.
2. To ensure and enable sustainable development and food production on a global scale.
*** See section on "International Environmental Agreements and Associations" for information
related to international policies related to limiting greenhouse gases and controlling climate change
emanating from historic summits at Kyoto, Copenhagen, Doha, and Paris. ***
2. Air Pollution
Long before global warming reared its head as a significant issue, those concerned about the
India Review 2017
Page 391 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
environment and public health noted the deleterious effects of human-initiated combustion upon
the atmosphere. Killer smogs from coal burning triggered acute health emergencies in London and
other places. At a lower level of intensity motor vehicle, power plant, and industrial emissions
impaired long-range visibility and probably had some chronic adverse consequences on the
respiratory systems of persons breathing such air.
In time, scientists began associating the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides released from coal
burning with significant acid deposition in the atmosphere, eventually falling as "acid rain." This
phenomenon has severely degraded forestlands, especially in Europe and a few parts of the United
States. It has also impaired some aquatic ecosystems and eaten away the surface of some human
artifacts, such as marble monuments. Scrubber technology and conversion to cleaner fuels have
enabled the level of industrial production to remain at least constant while significantly reducing
acid deposition. Technologies aimed at cleaning the air and curtailing acid rain, soot, and smog
may, nonetheless, boomerang as the perils of global warming become increasingly serious. In brief,
these particulates act as sort of a sun shade -- comparable to the effect of volcanic eruptions on the
upper atmosphere whereby periods of active volcanism correlate with temporarily cooler weather
conditions. Thus, while the carbon dioxide releases that are an inevitable byproduct of combustion
continue, by scrubbing the atmosphere of pollutants, an industrial society opens itself to greater
insolation (penetration of the sun's rays and consequent heating), and consequently, it is likely to
experience a correspondingly greater rise in ambient temperatures.
The health benefits of removing the sources of acid rain and smog are indisputable, and no one
would recommend a return to previous conditions. Nevertheless, the problematic climatic effects of
continually increasing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a major global
environmental challenge, not as yet addressed adequately.
3. Ozone Depletion
The stratospheric ozone layer functions to prevent ultraviolet radiation from reaching the earth.
Normally, stratospheric ozone is systematically disintegrated and regenerated through natural
photochemical processes. The stratospheric ozone layer, however, has been depleted unnaturally as
a result of anthropogenic (man-made) chemicals, most especially chlorine and bromide compounds
such as chloroflorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and various industrial chemicals in the form of
solvents, refrigerants, foaming agents, aerosol propellants, fire retardants, and fumigants. Ozone
depletion is of concern because it permits a greater degree of ultraviolet-B radiation to reach the
earth, which then increases the incidences of cancerous malignancies, cataracts, and human
immune deficiencies. In addition, even in small doses, ozone depletion affects the ecosystem by
disturbing food chains, agriculture, fisheries and other forms of biological diversity.
Transnational policies enacted to respond to the dangers of ozone depletion include the 1985
India Review 2017
Page 392 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the 1987 Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Montreal Protocol was subsequently amended in
London in 1990, Copenhagen in 1992 and Vienna in 1995. By 1996, 155 countries had ratified the
Montreal Protocol, which sets out a time schedule for the reduction (and eventual elimination) of
ozone depleting substances (OPS), and bans exports and imports of ODS from and to nonparticipant countries.
In general, the Protocol stipulates that developed countries must eliminate halon consumption by
1994 and CFC consumption by 1996, while developing countries must eliminate these substances
by 2010. Consumption of methyl bromide, which is used as a fumigant, was to be frozen at the
1995 in developed countries, and fully eliminated in 2010, while developing countries are to freeze
consumption by 2002, based on average 1995-1998 consumption levels. Methyl chloroform is to
be phased out by 2005. Under the Montreal Protocol, most ODS will be completely eliminated
from use by 2010.
4. Land Degradation
In recent decades, land degradation in more arid regions of the world has become a serious
concern. The problem, manifest as both "desertification" and "devegetation," is caused primarily by
climate variability and human activities, such as "deforestation," excessive cultivation, overgrazing,
and other forms of land resource exploitation. It is also exacerbated by inadequate irrigation
practices. Although the effects of droughts on drylands have been temporary in the past, today, the
productivity and sustainability of these lands have been severely compromised for the long term.
Indeed, in every region of the world, land degradation has become an acute issue.
Desertification and Devegetation:
"Desertification" is a process of land degradation causing the soil to deteriorate, thus losing its
nutrients and fertility, and eventually resulting in the loss of vegetation, known as "devegetation."
As aforementioned, "desertification" and "devegetation" are caused by human activities, yet human
beings are also the greatest casualties. Because these forms of land degradation affect the ability of
the soil to produce crops, they concomitantly contribute to poverty. As population increases and
demographic concentrations shift, the extent of land subject to stresses by those seeking to wrest
subsistence from it has inexorably risen.
In response, the United Nations has formed the Convention to Combat Desertification-aimed at
implementing programs to address the underlying causes of desertification, as well as measures to
prevent and minimize its effects. Of particular significance is the formulation of policies on
transboundary resources, such as areas around lakes and rivers. At a broader level, the Convention
India Review 2017
Page 393 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
has established a Conference of Parties (COP), which includes all ratifying governments, for
directing and advancing international action.
To ensure more efficacious use of funding, the Convention intends to reconfigure international aid
to utilize a consultative and coordinated approach in the disbursement and expenditure of donor
funds. In this way, local communities that are affected by desertification will be active participants
in the solution-generation process. In-depth community education projects are envisioned as part of
this new international aid program, and private donor financing is encouraged. Meanwhile, as new
technologies are developed to deal with the problem of desertification, they need to be distributed
for application across the world. Hence, the Convention calls for international cooperation in
scientific research in this regard.
Desertification is a problem of sustainable development. It is directly connected to human
challenges such as poverty, social and economic well-being and environmental protection as well.
Broader environmental issues, such as climate change, biological diversity, and freshwater supplies,
are indirectly related, so any effort to resolve this environmental challenge must entail coordinated
research efforts and joint action.
Deforestation:
Deforestation is not a recent phenomenon. For centuries, human beings have cut down trees to
clear space for land cultivation, or in order to use the wood for fuel. Over the last 200 years, and
most especially after World War II, deforestation increased because the logging industry became a
globally profitable endeavor, and so the clearing of forested areas was accelerated for the purposes
of industrial development. In the long term, this intensified level of deforestation is considered
problematic because the forest is unable to regenerate itself quickly. The deforestation that has
occurred in tropical rainforests is seen as an especially serious concern, due to the perceived
adverse effects of this process upon the entire global ecosystem.
The most immediate consequence of deforestation is soil degradation. Soil, which is necessary for
the growth of vegetation, can be a fragile and vital property. Organically, an extensive evolution
process must take place before soil can produce vegetation, yet at the same time, the effects of
natural elements, such as wind and rain, can easily and quickly degrade this resource. This
phenomenon is known as soil erosion. In addition, natural elements like wind and rain reduce the
amount of fertile soil on the ground, making soil scarcity a genuine problem. When fertile topsoil
that already exists is removed from the landscape in the process of deforestation, soil scarcity is
further exacerbated. Equally significant is the fact that once land has been cleared so that the
topsoil can be cultivated for crop production, not only are the nutrient reserves in the soil depleted,
thus producing crops of inferior quality, but the soil structure itself becomes stressed and
deteriorates further.
India Review 2017
Page 394 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Another direct result of deforestation is flooding. When forests are cleared, removing the cover of
vegetation, and rainfall occurs, the flow of water increases across the surface of land. When
extensive water runoff takes place, the frequency and intensity of flooding increases. Other adverse
effects of deforestation include the loss of wildlife and biodiversity within the ecosystem that
supports such life forms.
At a broader level, tropical rainforests play a vital role in maintaining the global environmental
system. Specifically, destruction of tropical rainforests affects the carbon dioxide cycle. When
forests are destroyed by burning (or rotting), carbon dioxide is released into the air, thus
contributing to an intensified "greenhouse effect." The increase in greenhouse gas emissions like
carbon dioxide is a major contributor to global warming, according to many environmental
scientists. Indeed, trees themselves absorb carbon dioxide in the process of photosynthesis, so their
loss also reduces the absorption of greenhouse gases.
Tropical rainforest destruction also adversely affects the nitrogen cycle. Nitrogen is a key nutrient
for both plants and animals. Plants derive nitrogen from soil, while animals obtain it via nitrogenenriched vegetation. This element is essential for the formation of amino acids, and thereby for
proteins and biochemicals that all living things need for metabolism and growth. In the nitrogen
cycle, vegetation acquires these essential proteins and biochemicals, and then cyclically returns
them to the atmosphere and global ecosystem. Accordingly, when tropical rainforest ecosystems
are compromised, not only is vegetation removed; the atmosphere is also affected and climates are
altered. At a more immediate level, the biodiversity within tropical rainforests, including wildlife
and insect species and a wealth of plant varieties, is depleted. Loss of rare plants is of particular
concern because certain species as yet unknown and unused could likely yield many practical
benefits, for instance as medicines.
As a result of the many challenges associated with deforestation, many environmental groups and
agencies have argued for government policies on the sustainable development of forests by
governments across the globe. While many countries have instituted national policies and programs
aimed at reducing deforestation, and substantial research has been advanced in regard to
sustainable and regenerative forestry development, there has been very little progress on an
international level. Generally speaking, most tropical rainforests are located in developing and less
developed countries, where economic growth is often dependent upon the exploitation of tropical
rainforests. Timber resources as well as wildlife hunting tend to be particularly lucrative arenas.
In places such as the Amazon, where deforestation takes place for the construction of energy
plants aimed at industrialization and economic development, there is an exacerbated effect on the
environment. After forests are cleared in order to construct such projects, massive flooding usually
ensues. The remaining trees then rot and decay in the wake of the flooding. As the trees
deteriorate, their biochemical makeup becomes more acidic, producing poisonous substances such
India Review 2017
Page 395 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
as hydrogen sulphide and methane gases. Acidified water subsequently corrodes the mechanical
equipment and operations of the plants, which are already clogged by rotting wood after the
floodwaters rise.
Deforestation generally arises from an economically plausible short-term motivation, but
nonetheless poses a serious global concern because the effects go beyond national boundaries. The
United Nations has established the World Commission on Forest and Sustainable Development.
This body's task is to determine the optimal means of dealing with the issue of deforestation,
without unduly affecting normal economic development, while emphasizing the global significance
of protecting tropical forest ecosystems.
5. Water Resources
For all terrestrial fauna, including humans, water is the most immediate necessity to sustain life. As
the population has increased and altered an ever-greater portion of the landscape from its natural
condition, demand on water resources has intensified, especially with the development of
industrialization and large-scale irrigation. The supply of freshwater is inherently limited, and
moreover distributed unevenly across the earth's landmasses. Moreover, not just demand for
freshwater but activities certain to degrade it are becoming more pervasive. By contrast, the oceans
form a sort of "last wilderness," still little explored and in large part not seriously affected by
human activity. However, coastal environments - the biologically richest part of the marine
ecosystem-are experiencing major depletion due to human encroachment and over-exploitation.
Freshwater:
In various regions, for instance the Colorado River in the western United States, current
withdrawals of river water for irrigation, domestic, and industrial use consume the entire
streamflow so that almost no water flows into the sea at the river's mouth. Yet development is
ongoing in many such places, implying continually rising demand for water. In some areas reliant
on groundwater, aquifers are being depleted at a markedly faster rate than they are being
replenished. An example is the San Joaquin Valley in California, where decades of high water
withdrawals for agriculture have caused land subsidence of ten meters or more in some spots.
Naturally, the uncertainty of future water supplies is particularly acute in arid and semi-arid regions.
Speculation that the phenomenon of global warming will alter geographic and seasonal rainfall
patterns adds further uncertainty.
Water conservation measures have great potential to alleviate supply shortages. Some city water
systems are so old and beset with leaking pipes that they lose as much water as they meter. Broadscale irrigation could be replaced by drip-type irrigation, actually enhancing the sustainability of
India Review 2017
Page 396 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
agriculture. In many areas where heavy irrigation has been used for decades, the result is
deposition of salts and other chemicals in the soil such that the land becomes unproductive for
farming and must be abandoned.
Farming is a major source of water pollution. Whereas restrictions on industrial effluents and other
"point sources" are relatively easy to implement, comparable measures to reform hydraulic
practices at farms and other "nonpoint sources" pose a significantly knottier challenge. Farmcaused water pollution takes the following main forms:
- Nitrate pollution found in wells in intensive farming areas as a consequence of heavy fertilizer use
is a threat to human health. The most serious danger is to infants, who by ingesting high-nitrate
water can contract methemoglobinemia, sometimes called "blue baby syndrome," a potentially fatal
condition.
- Fertilizer runoff into rivers and lakes imparts unwanted nutrients that cause algae growth and
eventual loss of oxygen in the body of water, degrading its ability to support fish and other
desirable aquatic life.
- Toxic agricultural chemicals - insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides - are detectable in some
aquifers and waterways.
In general, it is much easier to get a pollutant into water than to retrieve it out. Gasoline additives,
dry cleaning chemicals, other industrial toxins, and in a few areas radionucleides have all been
found in water sources intended for human use. The complexity and long time scale of
subterranean hydrological movements essentially assures that pollutants already deposited in
aquifers will continue to turn up for decades to come. Sophisticated water treatment processes are
available, albeit expensive, to reclaim degraded water and render it fit for human consumption. Yet
source protection is unquestionably a more desirable alternative.
In much of the developing world, and even some low-income rural enclaves of the developed
world, the population lacks ready access to safe water. Surface water and shallow groundwater
supplies are susceptible to contamination from untreated wastewater and failing septic tanks, as
well as chemical hazards. The occurrence of waterborne disease is almost certainly greatly
underreported.
Marine Resources:
Coastal areas have always been desirable places for human habitation, and population pressure on
them continues to increase. Many types of water degradation that affect lakes and rivers also affect
coastal zones: industrial effluents, untreated or partially treated sewage, nutrient load from
India Review 2017
Page 397 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
agriculture figure prominently in both cases. Prospects for more extreme storms as a result of
global warming, as well as the pervasiveness of poorly planned development in many coastal areas,
forebode that catastrophic hurricanes and landslides may increase in frequency in the future.
Ongoing rise in sea levels will force remedial measures and in some cases abandonment of
currently valuable coastal property.
Fisheries over much of the globe have been overharvested, and immediate conservation measures
are required to preserve stocks of many species. Many governments subsidized factory-scale
fishing fleets in the 1970s and 1980s, and the resultant catch increase evidently surpassed a
sustainable level. It is uncertain how much of the current decline in fish stocks stems from
overharvesting and how much from environmental pollution. The deep ocean remains relatively
unaffected by human activity, but continental shelves near coastlines are frequently seriously
polluted, and these close-to-shore areas are the major biological nurseries for food fish and the
smaller organisms they feed on.
6. Environmental Toxins
Toxic chemical pollution exploded on the public consciousness with disclosure of spectacularly
polluted industrial areas such as Love Canal near Buffalo, New York. There is no question that
pollutants such as organophosphates or radionucleides can be highly deleterious to health, but
evidence to date suggests that seriously affected areas are a localized rather than universal problem.
While some explore the possibilities for a lifestyle that fully eschews use of modern industrial
chemicals, the most prevalent remediative approach is to focus on more judicious use. The most
efficient chemical plants are now able to contain nearly all toxic byproducts of their production
processes within the premises, minimizing the release of such substances into the environment.
Techniques such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) dictate limited rather than broadcast use of
pesticides: application only when needed using the safest available chemical, supplemented as
much as possible with nontoxic controls.
While heightened public awareness and growing technical sophistication suggest a hopeful outlook
on limiting the damage from manmade environmental toxins, one must grant that previous incidents
of their misuse and mishandling have already caused environmental damage that will have to be
dealt with for many years to come. In the case of the most hazardous radioactive substances, the
time scale for successful remediation actually extends beyond that of the recorded history of
civilization. Moreover, in this era of high population density and rapid economic growth, quotidian
activities such as the transport of chemicals will occasionally, seemingly inevitably result in
accidents with adverse environmental consequences.
India Review 2017
Page 398 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
7. "Islandization" and Biodiversity
With increased awareness regarding the adverse effects of unregulated hunting and habitat
depletion upon wildlife species and other aspects of biodiversity, large-scale efforts across the globe
have been initiated to reduce and even reverse this trend.
In every region of the world, many species of wildlife and areas of biodiversity have been saved
from extinction. Nationally, many countries have adopted policies aimed at preservation and
conservation of species, and one of the most tangible measures has been the proliferation of
protected habitats. Such habitats exist in the form of wildlife reserves, marine life reserves, and
other such areas where biodiversity can be protected from external encroachment and exploitation.
Despite these advances in wildlife and biodiversity protection, further and perhaps more intractable
challenges linger. Designated reserves, while intended to prevent further species decline, exist as
closed territories, fragmented from other such enclaves and disconnected from the larger
ecosystem. This environmental scenario is referred to as "islandization." Habitat reserves often
serve as oversized zoos or game farms, with landscapes and wildlife that have effectively been
"tamed" to suit. Meanwhile, the larger surrounding ecosystem continues to be seriously degraded
and transformed, while within the islandized habitat, species that are the focus of conservation
efforts may not have sufficient range and may not be able to maintain healthy genetic variability.
As a consequence, many conservationists and preservationists have demanded that substantially
larger portions of land be withheld as habitat reserves, and a network of biological corridors to
connect continental reserves be established. While such efforts to combat islandization have
considerable support in the United States, how precisely such a program would be instituted,
especially across national boundaries, remains a matter of debate. International conservationists
and preservationists say without a network of reserves a massive loss of biodiversity will result.
The concept of islandization illustrates why conservation and preservation of wildlife and
biodiversity must consider and adopt new, broader strategies. In the past, conservation and
preservation efforts have been aimed at specific species, such as the spotted owl and grizzly bear in
North America, the Bengal tiger in Southeast Asia, the panda in China, elephants in Africa. Instead,
the new approach is to simultaneously protect many and varied species that inhabit the same
ecosystem. This method, referred to as "bio-regional conservation," may more efficaciously
generate longer-term and more far-reaching results precisely because it is aimed at preserving entire
ecosystems, and all the living things within.
More About Biodiversity Issues:
This section is directly taken from the United Nations Environmental Program: "Biodiversity
India Review 2017
Page 399 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Assessment"
The Global Biodiversity Assessment, completed by 1500 scientists under the auspices of United
Nations Environmental Program in 1995, updated what is known (or unknown) about global
biological diversity at the ecosystem, species and genetic levels. The assessment was uncertain of
the total number of species on Earth within an order of magnitude. Of its working figure of 13
million species, only 13 percent are scientifically described. Ecological community diversity is also
poorly known, as is its relationship to biological diversity, and genetic diversity has been studied for
only a small number of species. The effects of human activities on biodiversity have increased so
greatly that the rate of species extinctions is rising to hundreds or thousands of times the
background level. These losses are driven by increasing demands on species and their habitats, and
by the failure of current market systems to value biodiversity adequately. The Assessment calls for
urgent action to reverse these trends.
There has been a new recognition of the importance of protecting marine and aquatic biodiversity.
The first quantitative estimates of species losses due to growing coral reef destruction predict that
almost 200,000 species, or one in five presently contributing to coral reef biodiversity, could die
out in the next 40 years if human pressures on reefs continue to increase.
Since Rio, many countries have improved their understanding of the status and importance of their
biodiversity, particularly through biodiversity country studies such as those prepared under the
auspices of UNEP/GEF. The United Kingdom identified 1250 species needing monitoring, of
which 400 require action plans to ensure their survival. Protective measures for biodiversity, such
as legislation to protect species, can prove effective. In the USA, almost 40 percent of the plants
and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act are now stable or improving as a direct
result of recovery efforts. Some African countries have joined efforts to protect threatened species
through the 1994 Lusaka Agreement, and more highly migratory species are being protected by
specialized cooperative agreements among range states under the Bonn Agreement.
There is an emerging realization that a major part of conservation of biological diversity must take
place outside of protected areas and involve local communities. The extensive agricultural areas
occupied by small farmers contain much biodiversity that is important for sustainable food
production. Indigenous agricultural practices have been and continue to be important elements in
the maintenance of biodiversity, but these are being displaced and lost. There is a new focus on the
interrelationship between agrodiversity conservation and sustainable use and development practices
in smallholder agriculture, with emphasis on use of farmers' knowledge and skills as a source of
information for sustainable farming.
Perhaps even more important than the loss of biodiversity is the transformation of global
biogeochemical cycles, the reduction in the total world biomass, and the decrease in the biological
productivity of the planet. While quantitative measurements are not available, the eventual
India Review 2017
Page 400 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
economic and social consequences may be so significant that the issue requires further attention.
******
Specific sources used for this section:
Bendall, Roger. 1996. "Biodiversity: the follow up to Rio". The Globe 30:4-5, April 1996.
Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Implications. 1995. Special issue on "People,
Land Management and Environmental Change", Vol. 3, No. 4, September 1995.
Golubev, Genady N. (Moscow University) In litt. 29 June 1996.
Heywood, V.H. (ed.). 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment. United Nations Environment
Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Heywood, V.H. 1996. "The Global Biodiversity Assessment". The Globe, 30:2-4, April 1996.
Reaka-Kudla, Marjorie. 1996. Paper presented at American Association for Advancement of
Science, February 1996. Quoted in Pain, Stephanie. "Treasures lost in reef madness". New
Scientist, 17 February 1996.
Uitto, Juha I., and Akiko Ono (eds). 1996. Population, Land Management and Environmental
Change. The United Nations University, Tokyo.
USFWS. 1994. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report to Congress, cited in news release 21 July
India Review 2017
Page 401 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
1994.
Online resources used generally in the Environmental Overview:
Environmental Protection Agency Global Warming Site. URL: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming
Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations: Forestry. URL:
http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/sofo/en/
Global Warming Information Page. URL: http://globalwarming.org
U n i t e d N a t i o n s E n v i r o n m e n t a l
http://www.unep.org/GEO/GEO_Products/Assessment_Reports/
P r o g r a m .
U R L :
United Nations Global Environmental Outlook. URL: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/
Note on Edition Dates:
The edition dates for textual resources are noted above because they were used to formulate the
original content. We also have used online resources (cited above) to update coverage as needed.
Information Resources
For more information about environmental concepts, CountryWatch recommends the following
resources:
The United Nations Environmental Program Network (with country profiles)
<http://www.unep.net/>
The United Nations Environment Program on Climate Change
<http://climatechange.unep.net/>
The United Nations Environmental Program on Waters and Oceans
India Review 2017
Page 402 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
<http://www.unep.ch/earthw/Pdepwat.htm>
The United Nations Environmental Program on Forestry: "Forests in Flux"
<http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/flux/homepage.htm>
FAO "State of the World's Forests"
<http://www.fao.org/forestry/FO/SOFO/SOFO99/sofo99-e.stm>
World Resources Institute.
<http://www.wri.org/>
Harvard University Center for Health and the Global Environment
<http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/the-review.html>
The University of Wisconsin Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment
http://sage.aos.wisc.edu/
International Environmental Agreements and Associations
International Policy Development in Regard to Global Warming:
Introduction
Regardless of what the precise nature of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and
global warming may be, it seems that there is some degree of a connection between the
phenomena. Any substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and global warming trends will
likely involve systematic changes in industrial operations, the use of advanced energy sources and
technologies, as well as global cooperation in implementing and regulating these transformations.
In this regard, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
stipulated the following objectives:
India Review 2017
Page 403 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
1. To stabilize "greenhouse gas" concentrations within the atmosphere, in such a manner that
would preclude hazardous anthropogenic intervention into the existing biosphere and ecosystems of
the world. This stabilization process would facilitate the natural adaptation of ecosystems to
changes in climate.
2. To ensure and enable sustainable development and food production on a global scale.
Following are two discusssions regarding international policies on the environment, followed by
listings of international accords.
Special Entry: The Kyoto Protocol
The UNFCCC was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and entered into force in 1994. Over
175 parties were official participants.
Meanwhile, however, many of the larger, more industrialized nations failed to reach the emissions'
reduction targets, and many UNFCCC members agreed that the voluntary approach to reducing
emissions had not been successful. As such, UNFCCC members reached a consensus that legally
binding limits were necessitated, and agreed to discuss such a legal paradigm at a meeting in Kyoto,
Japan in 1997. At that meeting, the UNFCCC forged the Kyoto Protocol. This concord is the first
legally binding international agreement that places limits on emissions from industrialized countries.
The major greenhouse gas emissions addressed in the Kyoto Protocol include carbon dioxide,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and methane.
The provisions of the Kyoto Protocol stipulate that economically advanced nations must reduce
their combined emissions of greenhouse gases, by approximately five percent from their 1990
levels, before the 2008-2010 deadline. Countries with the highest carbon dioxide emissions, such as
the United States (U.S.), many of the European Union (EU) countries, and Japan, are to reduce
emissions by a scale of 6 to 8 percent. All economically advanced nations must show
"demonstrable progress" by 2005. In contrast, no binding limits or timetable have been set on
developing countries. Presumably, this distinction is due to the fact that most developing countries - with the obvious exceptions of India and China -- simply do not emit as many greenhouse gases
as do more industrially advanced countries. Meanwhile, these countries are entrenched in the
process of economic development.
Regardless of the aforementioned reasoning, there has been strong opposition against the
asymmetrical treatment assigned to emissions limits among developed and developing countries.
Although this distinction might be regarded as unfair in principle, associations such as the Alliance
of Small Island States have been vocal in expressing how global warming -- a result of greenhouse
gas emissions - has contributed to the rise in sea level, and thus deleteriously affected their very
India Review 2017
Page 404 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
existence as island nation states. For this reason, some parties have suggested that economically
advanced nations, upon returning to their 1990 levels, should be required to further reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions by a deadline of 2005. In response, interested parties have observed that
even if such reductions were undertaken by economically advanced nations, they would not be
enough to completely control global warming. Indeed, a reduction in the rate of fossil fuel usage by
developing nations would also be necessary to have substantial ameliorative effect on global
warming. Indeed, a reduction in the rate of fossil fuel usage by developing nations would also be
necessary to have substantial ameliorative effect on global warming.
As such, the Protocol established a "Clean Development Mechanism" which permits developed
countries to invest in projects aimed at reducing emissions within developing countries in return for
credit for the reductions. Ostensibly, the objective of this mechanism is to curtail emissions in
developing countries without unduly penalizing them for their economic development. Under this
model, the countries with more potential emissions credits could sell them to other signatories of
the Kyoto Protocol, whose emissions are forecast to significantly rise in the next few years. Should
this trading of emissions credits take place, it is estimated that the Kyoto Protocol's emissions
targets could still be met.
In 1999, the International Energy Outlook projected that Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union
and Newly Independent States, as well as parts of Asia, are all expected to show a marked
decrease in their level of energy-related carbon emissions in 2010. Nations with the highest
emissions, specifically, the U.S., the EU and Japan, are anticipated to reduce their emissions by up
to 8 percent by 2012. By 2000, however, the emissions targets were not on schedule for
achievement. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates forecast that by 2010, there will be
a 34 percent increase in carbon emissions from the 1990 levels, in the absence of major shifts in
policy, economic growth, energy prices, and consumer trends. Despite this assessment in the U.S.,
international support for the Kyoto Protocol remained strong, especially among European countries
and island states, who view the pact as one step in the direction away from reliance on fossil fuels
and other sources of greenhouse gases.
In 2001, U.S. President, George W. Bush, rejected his country's participation in the Kyoto
Protocol, saying that the costs imposed on the global economic system, and especially, on the US,
overshadowed the benefits of the Protocol. He also cited the unfair burden on developed nations to
reduce emissions, as another primary reasons for withdrawal from the international pact, as well as
insufficient evidence regarding the science of global warming. Faced with impassioned international
disapproval for his position, the U.S. president stated that his administration remained interested in
dealing with the matter of global warming, but would endorse alternative measures to combat the
problem, such as voluntary initiatives limiting emissions. Critics of Bush's position, however, have
noted that it was the failure of voluntary initiatives to reduce emissions following the Rio Summit
that led to the establishment of the Kyoto Protocol in the first place.
India Review 2017
Page 405 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
In the wake of the Bush administration's decision, many participant countries resigned themselves
to the reality that the goals of the Kyoto Protocol might not be achieved without U.S. involvement.
Nevertheless, in Bonn, Germany, in July 2001, the remaining participant countries struck a political
compromise on some of the key issues and sticking points, and planned to move forward with the
Protocol, irrespective of the absence of the U.S. The key compromise points included the
provision for countries to offset their targets with carbon sinks (these are areas of forest and
farmland which can absorb carbon through the process of photosynthesis). Another compromise
point within the broader Bonn Agreement was the reduction of emissions cuts of six gases from
over 5 percent to a more achievable 2 percent. A third key change was the provision of funding for
less wealthy countries to adopt more progressive technologies.
In late October and early November 2001, the UNFCC's 7th Conference of the Parties met in
Marrakesh, Morocco, to finalize the measures needed to make the Kyoto Protocol operational.
Although the UNFCC projected that ratification of the Protocol would make it legally binding
within a year, many critics noted that the process had fallen short of implementing significant
changes in policy that would be necessary to actually stop or even slow climate change. They also
maintained that the absence of U.S. participation effectively rendered the Protocol into being a
political exercise without any substance, either in terms of transnational policy or in terms of
environmental concerns.
The adoption of the compromises ensconced within the Bonn Agreement had been intended to
make the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol more palatable to the U.S. In this regard, it failed to
achieve its objective as the Bush administration continued to eschew participation in the
international accord. Still, however, the Bonn Agreement did manage to render a number of other
positive outcomes. Specifically, in 2002, key countries, such as Russia, Japan and Canada agreed
to ratify the protocol, bringing the number of signatories to 178. The decision by key countries to
ratify the protocol was regarded as "the kiss of life" by observers.
By 2005, on the eve of a climate change conference in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair
was hoping to deal with the problems of climate change beyond the provisions set forth in the
Kyoto Protocol. Acknowledging that the Kyoto Protocol could not work in its current form, Blair
wanted to open the discussion for a new climate change plan.
Blair said that although most of the world had signed on to Kyoto, the protocol could not meet any
of its practical goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions without the participation of the United
States, the world's largest polluter. He also noted that any new agreement would have to include
India and China -- significant producers of greenhouse gas emissions, but exempt from Kyoto
because they have been classified as developing countries. Still, he said that progress on dealing
with climate change had been stymied by "a reluctance to face up to reality and the practical action
needed to tackle problem."
India Review 2017
Page 406 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Blair also touted the "huge opportunities" in technology and pointed toward the possibilities offered
by wind, solar and nuclear power, along with fuel cell technology, eco-friendly biofuels, and
carbon capture and storage which could generate low carbon power. Blair also asserted that his
government was committed to achieving its domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by
20 percent by 2010.
In the United States, President George W. Bush has said that global warming remained a debatable
issue and despite conclusions reached by his own Environmental Protection Agency, he has not
agreed with the conclusion that global warming and climate change are linked with human
activities. Bush has also refused to ratify Kyoto on the basis of its economic costs.
Australia, an ally of the United States, has taken a similarly dim view of the Kyoto Protocol.
Ahead of the November 2005 climate change meeting in Canada in which new goals for the
protocol were to be discussed, Australia 's Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, said that
negotiating new greenhouse gas emission levels for the Kyoto Protocol would be a waste of time.
Campbell said, "There is a consensus that the caps, targets and timetables approach is flawed. If
we spend the next five years arguing about that, we'll be fiddling and negotiating while Rome
burns." Campbell, like the Bush administration, has also advocated a system of voluntary action
in which industry takes up new technologies rather than as a result of compelling the reduction of
emissions. But the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has called on its government to
ratify the Kyoto Protocol, to establish a system of emissions trading, and to set binding limits on
emissions. Interestingly, although it did not sign on to Kyoto , Australia was expected to meet its
emissions target by 2012 (an 8 percent increase in 1990 levels in keeping with the country's
reliance on coal). But this success has nothing to do with new technologies and is due to statebased regulations on land clearing.
Note: The Kyoto Protocol calls for developed nations to cut greenhouse emissions by 5.2 percent
of 1990 levels by 2012.
Special Entry: Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen (2009) -In December 2009, the United Nations Climate Change Summit opened in the Danish capital of
Copenhagen. The summit was scheduled to last from Dec. 7-18, 2009. Delegates from more than
190 countries were in attendance, and approximately 100 world leaders, including British Prime
Minister Gordon Brown and United States President Barack Obama, were expected to participate.
At issue was the matter of new reductions targets on greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
Despite earlier fears that little concurrence would come from the conference, effectively pushing
significant actions forward to a 2010 conference in Mexico City, negotiators were now reporting
that the talks were productive and several key countries, such as South Africa, had pledged to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The two main issues that could still lead to cleavages were
India Review 2017
Page 407 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
questions of agreement between the industrialized countries and the developing countries of the
world, as well as the overall effectiveness of proposals in seriously addressing the perils of climate
change.
On Dec. 9, 2009, four countries -- the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico and Norway - presented a document outlining ideas for raising and managing billions of dollars, which would be
intended to help vulnerable countries dealing with the perils of climate change. Described as a
"green fund," the concept could potentially help small island states at risk because of the rise in sea
level. Bangladesh identified itself as a potential recipient of an assistance fund, noting that as a
country plagued by devastating floods, it was particularly hard-hit by climate change. The "green
fund" would fall under the rubric of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, for which developed countries have been committed to quantifying their emission
reduction targets, and also to providing financial and technical support to developing countries.
The United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico and Norway also called for the creation of a new legal
treaty that would replace the Kyoto Protocol. This new treaty, which could go into force in 2012,
would focus largely on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. But Australia went
even further in saying that the successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, should be one with
provisions covering all countries. Such a move would be a departure from the structure of the
Kyoto Protocol, which contained emissions targets for industrialized countries due to the prevailing
view that developed countries had a particular historic responsibility to be accountable for climate
change. More recently, it has become apparent that substantial reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions demanded by scientists would only come to pass with the participation also of significant
developing nation states, such as China and India. Indeed, one of the most pressing critiques of the
Kyoto Protocol was that it was a "paper tiger" that failed to address the impact of the actions of
emerging economies like China and India, with its focus on the developed economies.
Now, in 2009, China -- as the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter -- was responding this
dubious distinction by vocalizing its criticism of the current scenario and foregrounding its new
commitments. Ahead of the Copenhagen summit, China had announced it would reduce the
intensity of its carbon emissions per unit of its GDP in 2020 by 40 to 45 percent against 2005
levels. With that new commitment at hand, China was now accusing the United States and the
European Union of shirking their own responsibilities by setting weak targets for greenhouse gas
emissions cuts. Senior Chinese negotiator, Su Wei, characterized the goals of the world's second
largest greenhouse gas emitter -- the United States -- as "not notable," and the European Union's
target as "not enough." Su Wei also took issue with Japan for setting implausible preconditions.
On Dec. 11, 2009, China demanded that developed and wealthy countries in Copenhagen should
help deliver a real agreement on climate change by delivering on their promises to reduce carbon
emissions and provide financial support for developing countries to adapt to global warming. In so
doing, China's Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said his country was hoping that a "balanced
India Review 2017
Page 408 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
outcome" would emerge from the discussions at the summit. Echoing the position of the Australian
government, He Yafei spoke of a draft agreement as follows: "The final document we're going to
adopt needs to be taking into account the needs and aspirations of all countries, particularly the
most vulnerable ones."
China's Vice Foreign Minister emphasized the fact that climate change was "a matter of survival"
for developing countries, and accordingly, such countries need wealthier and more developed
countries to accentuate not only their pledges of emissions reduction targets, but also their financial
commitments under the aforementioned United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. To that end, scientists and leaders of small island states in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific
Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, have highlighted the existential threat posed by global warming and
the concomitant rise in sea level.
China aside, attention was also on India -- another major player in the developing world and a
country with an industrializing economy that was impacting the environment. At issue was the
Indian government's decision to set a carbon intensity target, which would slow emissions growth
by up to 25 percent by the 2020 deadline. This strong position was resisted by some elements in
India, who argued that their country should not be taking such a strong position when developed
wealthy countries were yet to show accountability for their previous commitments to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The matter grew so heated that the members of the opposition stormed
out of the parliament in protest as Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh defended the
policy. But the political pressure at home in India was leaving the Indian delegation in Copenhagen
in a state of chaos as well. In fact, India's top environmental negotiator refused to travel to
Copenhagen in protest of the government's newly-announced stance.
China and India were joined by Brazil and South Africa in the crafting of a draft document calling
for a new global climate treaty to be completed by June 2010. Of concern has been the realization
that there was insufficient time to find concurrence on a full legal treaty, which would leave
countries only with a politically-binding text by the time the summit at Copenhagen closed. But
Guyana's leader, President Bharrat Jagdeo, warned that the summit in Denmark would be
classified as a failure unless a binding document was agreed upon instead of just political
consensus. He urged his cohorts to act with purpose saying, "Never before have science,
economics, geo-strategic self-interest and politics intersected in such a way on an issue that impacts
everyone on the planet."
Likewise, Tuvalu demanded that legally binding agreements emerge from Copenhagen. Its
proposal was supported by many of the vulnerable countries, from small island states and subSaharan Africa, all of whom warned of the catastrophic impact of climate change on their
citizens. Tuvalu also called for more aggressive action, such as an amendment to the 1992
agreement, which would focus on sharp greenhouse gas emissions and the accepted rise in
temperatures, due to the impact the rise in seas. The delegation from Kiribati joined the call by
drawing attention to the fact that one village had to be abandoned due to waist-high water, and
India Review 2017
Page 409 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
more such effects were likely to follow. Kiribati's Foreign Secretary, Tessie Lambourne, warned
that the people of Kiribati could well be faced with no homeland in the future saying, "Nobody in
this room would want to leave their homeland." But despite such impassioned pleas and
irrespective of warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the rise in sea
level from melting polar ice caps would deleteriously affect low-lying atolls such as such as Tuvalu
and Kiribati in the Pacific, and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, the oil-giant Saudi Arabia was
able to block this move.
Meanwhile, within the developed countries, yet another power struggle was brewing. The
European Union warned it would only agree to raise its target of 20 percent greenhouse gas
emissions reductions to 30 percent if the United States demonstrated that it would do more to
reduce its own emissions. It was unknown if such pressure would yield results. United States
President Barack Obama offered a "provisional" 2020 target of 17 percent reductions, noting that
he could not offer greater concessions at Copenhagen due to resistance within the United States
Congress, which was already trying to pass a highly controversial "cap and trade" emissions
legislation. However, should that emissions trading bill fail in the Senate, the United States
Environment Protection Agency's declaration that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health
and the environment was expected to facilitate further regulations and limits on power plants and
factories at the national level. These moves could potentially strengthen the Obama
administration's offering at Copenhagen. As well, President Obama also signaled that he would be
willing to consider the inclusion of international forestry credits.
Such moves indicated willingness by the Obama administration to play a more constructive role on
the international environmental scene than its predecessor, the Bush administration. Indeed, ahead
of his arrival at the Copenhagen summit, President Barack Obama's top environmental advisors
promised to work on a substantial climate change agreement. To that end, United States
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said at a press conference, "We are
seeking robust engagement with all of our partners around the world." But would this proengagement assertion yield actual results?
By Dec. 12, 2009, details related to a draft document prepared by Michael Zammit Cutajar, the
head of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action, were released at the
Copenhagen climate conference. Included in the document were calls for countries to make major
reductions in carbon emissions over the course of the next decade. According to the Washington
Post, industrialized countries were called on to make cuts of between 25 percent and 40 percent
below 1990 levels -- reductions that were far more draconian than the United States was likely to
accept. As discussed above, President Obama had offered a provisional reduction target of 17
percent. The wide gap between the released draft and the United States' actual stated position
suggested there was much more negotiating in the offing if a binding agreement could be forged,
despite the Obama administration's claims that it was seeking greater engagement on this issue.
India Review 2017
Page 410 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
In other developments, the aforementioned call for financial support of developing countries to deal
with the perils of climate change was partly answered by the European Union on Dec. 11, 2009.
The European bloc pledged an amount of 2.4 billion euros (US$3.5 billion) annually from 2010 to
2012. Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren of Sweden -- the country that holds the rotating
presidency of the European Union at the time of the summit -- put his weight behind the notion of
a "legally binding deal." Meanwhile, Yvo de Boer, a top United Nations climate change official,
focused less on the essence of the agreement and more on tangible action and effects saying,
"Copenhagen will only be a success if it delivers significant and immediate action that begins the
day the conference ends."
The division between developed and developing countries in Copenhagen reached new heights on
Dec. 14, 2009, when some of the poor and less developed countries launched a boycott at the
summit. The move, which was spurred by African countries but backed by China and India,
appeared to be geared toward redirecting attention and primary responsibility to the wealthier and
more industrialized countries. The impasse was resolved after the wealthier and more
industrialized countries offered assurances that they did not intend on shirking from their
commitments to reducing greenhouse gases. As a result, the participating countries ceased the
boycott.
Outside the actual summit, thousands of protestors had gathered to demand crucial global
warming, leading to clashes between police and demonstrators elsewhere in the Danish capital city.
There were reports of scattered violence across Copenhagen and more than 1,000 people were
arrested.
Nevertheless, by the second week of the climate change summit, hopes of forging a strong deal
were eroding as developed and developing nations remained deadlocked on sharing cuts in
greenhouse gases, and particularly on the matters of financing and temperature goals. In a bid to
shore up support for a new climate change, United States President Barack Obama joined other
world leaders in Copenhagen. On Dec. 14, 2009, there was a standoff brewing between the
United States and China. At issue was China's refusal to accept international monitoring of its
expressed targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The United States argued that China's
opposition to verification could be a deal-breaker.
By the close of the summit, the difficult process eventually resulted in some consensus being
cultivated. A draft text called for $100 billion a year by 2020 to assist poor nations cope with
climate change, while aiming to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial levels. The deal also included specific targets for developed countries to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and called for reductions by developing countries as a share of their
economies. Also included in the agreement was a mechanism to verify compliance. The details of
the agreement were supported by President Barack Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
India Review 2017
Page 411 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
This draft would stand as an interim agreement, with a legally-binding international pact unlikely to
materialize until 2010. In this way, the summit in Copenhagen failed to achieve its central
objective, which was to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.
Editor's Note
In the background of these developments was the growing global consciousness related to global
warming and climate change. Indeed, as the Copenhagen summit was ongoing, it was clear there
was enormous concurrence on the significance of the stakes with an editorial on the matter of
climate change being published in 56 newspapers in 45 countries. That editorial warned that
without global action, climate change would "ravage our planet." Meanwhile, a global survey taken
by Globescan showed that concern over global warming had exponentially increased from 1998 -when only 20 percent of respondents believed it to be a serious problem -- to 64 percent in 2009.
Such survey data, however, was generated ahead of the accusations by climate change skeptics
that some climate scientists may have overstated the case for global warming, based on emails
derived in an illicit manner from a British University.
Special Entry: Climate change talks in Doha in Qatar extend life of Kyoto Protocol (2012)
December 2012 saw climate talks ensue in the Qatari city of Doha as representatives from
countries across the world gathered to discuss the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to
minimize greenhouse gas emissions. The summit yielded results with decisions made (1) to extend
the Kyoto Protocol until 2020, and (2) for wealthier countries to compensate poorer countries for
the losses and damage incurred as a result of climate change.
In regards to the second matter, Malia Talakai of Nauru, a leading negotiator for the Alliance of
Small Island States, explained the necessity of the compensation package as follows: “We are trying
to say that if you pollute you must help us.”
This measure was being dubbed the "Loss and Damage" mechanism, and was being linked with
United States President Barack Obama's request for $60 billion from Congress to deal with the
devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy months before. The sight of a hurricane bearing down on
the northern Atlantic seaboard, along with the reality of the scope of reconstruction, appeared to
have illustrated the economic costs of climate change -- not so much as a distant environmental
issue -- but as a danger to the quotidian lives of people. Still, there was blame to be placed on the
United States and European countries -- some of world's largest emitters -- for failing to do more
to reduce emissions.
To that latter end, there was in fact little progress made on the central issue of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. Had those emissions been reduced, there would have been less of a need to
India Review 2017
Page 412 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
financially deal with the devastation caused by climate change. One interpretation was that the
global community was accepting the fact that industrialization was contributing to global warming,
which had deleterious effects on the polar ice caps and concomitantly on the rise of sea level, with
devastating effects for small island nations. Thus, wealthier countries were willing to pay around
$10 billion a year through 2020, effectively in "damages," to the poor countries that could be
viewed as the "collateral damage" of industrial progress. But damages today could potentially be
destruction tomorrow, leaving in place the existential challenges and burdens to be born by some of
the world's smallest and least wealthy island countries.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the representative for the small island nation states at the Doha summit
responded with ire, characterizing the lack of progress on reducing emissions as follows: "We see
the package before us as deeply deficient in mitigation (carbon cuts) and finance. It's likely to lock
us on the trajectory to a 3,4,5C rise in global temperatures, even though we agreed to keep the
global average temperature rise of 1.5C to ensure survival of all islands. There is no new finance
(for adapting to climate change and getting clean energy) -- only promises that something might
materialize in the future. Those who are obstructive need to talk not about how their people will
live, but whether our people will live."
Indeed, in most small island countries not just in the Pacific, but also the Caribbean and Indian
Ocean, ecological concerns and the climate crisis have been dominant themes with dire life and
death consequences looming in the background for their people. Small island nations in these
region are already at risk from the rise of sea-level, tropical cyclones, floods. But their very
livelihoods of fishing and subsistence farming were also at risk as a result of ecological and
environmental changes. Increasingly high storm surges can wipe out entire villages and contaminate
water supplies. Accordingly, the very existence of island nations, such as Kiribati and Tuvalu, are
at severe risk of being obliterated from the map. Yet even with the existential threat of being wiped
off the map in the offing, the international community has been either slow or restrictive in its
efforts to deal with global warming, climate change, economic and ecological damage, as well as
the emerging global challenge of environmental refugees.
A 2012 report from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Pacific Regional
Environment Program underlined the concerns of small island nations and their people as it
concluded that the livelihoods of approximately 10 million people in Pacific island communities
were increasingly vulnerable to climate change. In fact, low-lying islands in that region would
likely confront losses of up to 18 percent of gross domestic product due to climate change,
according to the report. The report covers 21 countries and territories, including Fiji, Kiribati,
Samoa and Tonga, and recommended environmental legislation intended to deal with the climate
crisis facing the small island countries particularly. As noted by David Sheppard, the director
general of the Pacific Regional Environment Program that co-sponsored this study: “The findings...
emphasize the need more than ever to raise the bar through collective actions that address the
region's environmental needs at all levels."
India Review 2017
Page 413 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Regardless of the failures of the summit in Qatar (discussed above), the meeting did facilitate a
process starting in 2015, which would bind both wealthy and poor countries together in the
mission of forging a new binding treaty that would replace the Kyoto Protocol and tackle the
central causes of climate change.
For more information on the threats faced in small island nations by climate change and the
measures being undertaken to lobby for international action, please see the Alliance for Small
Island States available online at the URL: http://aosis.org/
Special Report
COP 21 summit in Paris ends with historic agreement to tackle climate change; rare
international consensus formed on environmental crisis facing the planet (2015) -In mid-December 2015, the highly-anticipated United Nations climate conference of parties (COP)
in Paris, France, ended with a historic agreement. In fact, it would very likely be understood as
the most significant international agreement signed by all the recognized countries of the world
since the Cold War. Accordingly, the Paris Agreement was being distinguished as the first
multilateral pact that would compel all countries across the world to cut its carbon emissions -- one
of the major causes of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming,
and its deleterious effects ranging from the dangerous rise in sea level to catastrophic climate
change.
The accord, which was dubbed to be the "Paris Agreement," was the work of rigorous diplomacy
and fervent environmental advocacy, and it aimed to address the climate change crisis facing the
planet. As many as 195 countries were represented in the negotiations that led to the landmark
climate deal. Indeed, it was only after weeks of passionate debate that international concurrence
was reached in addressing the environmental challenges confronting the world, with particular
attention to moving beyond fossil fuels and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The success of the COP 21 summit in Paris and the emergence of the landmark Paris Agreement
was, to some extent, attributed to the efforts of France's Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius who
presided over the negotiations. The French foreign minister's experience and credentials as a
seasoned diplomat and respected statesman paid dividends. He skillfully guided the delegates from
almost 200 countries and interest groups along the negotiations process, with ostensibly productive
results and a reasonably robust deal to show for it.
On Dec. 12, 2015, French Foreign Minister Fabius officially adopted the agreement, declaring: "I
now invite the COP to adopt the decision entitled Paris Agreement outlined in the document.
India Review 2017
Page 414 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Looking out to the room I see that the reaction is positive, I see no objections. The Paris
agreement is adopted." Once Foreign Minister Fabius' gavel was struck, symbolically inaugurating
the Paris Agreement into force, the COP delegate rushed to their feet with loud and bouyant cheers
as well as thunderous applause.
In general, the Paris Agreement was being hailed as a victory for enviromental activists and a
triumph for international diplomats, while at the same time being understood as simply an initial -and imperfect -- move in the direction of a sustainable future. China's chief negotiator, Xie
Zhenhua, issued this message, saying that while the accord was not ideal, it should "not prevent
us from marching historical steps forward."
United States President Barack Obama lauded the deal as both "ambitious" and "historic," and the
work of strenuous multilateral negotiations as he declared, "Together, we've shown what's possible
when the world stands as one." The United States leader acknowledged that the accord was not
"perfect," but he reminded the critics that it was "the best chance to save the one planet we have. "
Former United States Vice President Al Gore, one of the world's most well known environmental
advocates, issued a lengthy statement on the accompishments ensconced in the Paris Agreement.
He highlighted the fact that the Paris Agreement was a first step towards a future with a reduced
carbon footprint on Planet Earth as he said, "The components of this agreement -- including a
strong review mechanism to enhance existing commitments and a long-term goal to eliminate
global-warming pollution this century -- are essential to unlocking the necessary investments in our
future. No agreement is perfect, and this one must be strengthened over time, but groups across
every sector of society will now begin to reduce dangerous carbon pollution through the framework
of this agreement."
The central provisions of the Paris Agreement included the following items:
- Greenhouse gas emissions should peak as quickly as possible, with a move towards balancing
energy sources, and ultimately the decrease of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century
- Global temperature increase would be limited to 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial
levels and would be held "well below" the two degrees Centigrade threshold
- Progress on these goals would be reviewed every five years beginning in 2020 with new
greenhouse gas reduction targets issued every five years
- $100 billion would be expended each year in climate finance for developing countries to move
forward with green technologies, with further climate financing to be advanced in the years beyond
It should be noted that there both legally binding and voluntary elements contained within the
Paris Agreement. Specifically, the submission of an emissions reduction target and the regular
review of that goal would be legally mandatory for all countries. Stated differently, there would be
a system in place by which experts would be able to track the carbon-cutting progress of each
India Review 2017
Page 415 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
country. At the same time, the specific targets to be set by countries would be determined at the
discretion of the countries, and would not be binding. While there was some criticism over this
non-binding element, the fact of the matter was that the imposition of emissions targets was
believed to be a major factor in the failure of climate change talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, in
2009.
In 2015, the talks faced challenges as several countries, such as China and India, objected to
conditions that would stymie economic and development. In order to avoid that kind of landmine,
a system Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) was developed and formed the
basis of the accord. As such, the Paris Agreement would, in fact, facilitate economic growth and
development, as well as technological progress, but with the goal of long-term ecological
sustainability based on low carbon sources. In fact, the agreement heralded as "the beginning of
the end of the fossil fuel era." As noted by Nick Mabey, the head of the climate diplomacy
organization E3G, said, "Paris means governments will go further and faster to tackle climate
change than ever before. The transition to a low carbon economy is now unstoppable, ensuring
the end of the fossil fuel age."
A particular sticking point in the agreement was the $100 billion earmarked for climate financing
for developing countries to transition from traditional fossil fuels to green energy technologies and a
low carbon future. In 2014, a report by the International Energy Agency indicated that the cost of
that transition would actually be around $44 trillion by the mid-century -- an amount that would
render the $100 billion being promised to be a drop in the proverbial bucket. However, the general
expectation was that the Republican-controlled Senate in the United States, which would have to
ratify the deal in that country, was not interested in contributing significant funds for the cause of
climate change.
A key strength of the Paris Agreement was the ubiquitous application of measures to all countries.
Of note was the frequently utilized concept of "flexibility" with regard to the Paris Agreement.
Specifically, the varying capacities of the various countries in meeting their obligations would be
anticipated and accorded flexibility. This aspect presented something of a departure from the 1997
Kyoto Protocol, which drew a sharp distinction between developed and developing countries, and
mandated a different set of obligations for those categories of countries. Thus, under Kyoto,
China and India were not held to the same standards as the United States and European
countries. In the Paris Agreement, there would be commitments from all countries across the
globe.
Another notable strength of the Paris Agreement was the fact that the countries of the world were
finally able to reach consensus on the vital necessity to limit global temperature increases to 1.5
degrees Centrigrade. Ahead of the global consensus on the deal, and as controversy continued to
surface over the targeted global temperature limits, the leaders of island countries were sounding
the alarm about the melting of the Polar ice caps and the associated rise in seal level. Prime
India Review 2017
Page 416 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Minister Enele Sopoaga of Tuvalu issued this dismal reminder: “Tuvalu’s future … is already
bleak and any further temperature increase will spell the total demise of Tuvalu. No leader in this
room carries such a level of worry and responsibility. Just imagine you are in my shoes, what
would you do?” It was thus something of a victory for environmental advocates that the countries
of the world could find cnsensus on the lower number -- 1.5 degrees rather than 2 degrees.
A significant weak point with regard to the Paris deal was a "loss and damage" provision, which
anticipates that even with all the new undertakings intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and move to a low carbon future, there would nonetheless be unavoidable climate change
consequences. Those consequences ranged from the loss of arable land for farmers as well as soil
erosion and contamination of potable water by sea water, to the decimation of territory in coastal
zones and on small islands, due to the rise in sea level, with entire small island countries being
rendered entirely uninhabitable. The reality was that peoples' homes across the world would be
destroyed along with their way of life.
With that latter catastrophic effect being a clear and present danger for small island countries, the
Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) demanded that the developed world acknowledge its
responsibility for this irreversible damage.. Despite the fact that greenhouse gas emissions and the
ensuing plague of global warming was, indeed, the consequence of development in the West (the
United States and Europe) and the large power house countries, such as Russia, China and India,
there was no appetite by those countries to sign on to unlimited liability. Under the Paris
Agreement, there was a call for research on insurance mechanisms that would address loss and
damage issues, with recommendations to come in the future.
The call for research was being regarded as an evasion of sorts and constituted the weakest aspect
of the Paris Agreement. Not surprisingly, a coalition of small island nations demanded a "Marshall
Plan" for the Pacific. Borrowing the term "Marshall Plan" from the post-World War II
reconstruction effort, the coalition of Pacific island nation, which included Kiribati, Tuvalu, Fiji,
and the Marshall Islands, called for an initiative that would include investment in renewable energy
and shoreline protection, cultural preservation, economic assistance for economies in transition,
and a plan for migration and resettlement for these countries as they confront the catastrophic
effects of the melting of the Polar ice caps and the concomitant rise in sea level. The precise
contours of the initiative remained unknown, unspecified, and a mere exercise in theory at the time
of writing. Yet such an initiative would, at some point, have to be addressed, given the realities of
climate change and the slow motion calamity unfolding each day for low-lying island nations across
the world.
As noted by Vice President Greg Stone of Conservation International, who also functions as an
adviser to the government of Kiribati, “Imagine living in a place where you know it’s going to go
away someday, but you don’t know what day that wave’s going to come over and wash your
home away." He added, “It’s a disaster we know is going to happen.” Meanwhile, the
India Review 2017
Page 417 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
intervening years promised to be filled with hardship for small island nations, such as Kiribati.
Stone explained, “For every inch of sea-level rise, these islands lose 10 feet of their freshwater
table to saltwater intrusion,” Stone explained. “So it’s not just about the day the water finally goes
over the island; it’s also about the day that there’s just not enough water left and everyone has to
move off the island.” Presaging the future for island nations that could face submersion, Stone
said, “If you look ahead 50 years, a country like Kiribati could become the first aqueous nation.
possibility of migration. That is, they own this big patch of ocean, and they administer it from
elsewhere.”
Foreign Minister Minister Tony Debrum of the Marshall Islands emerged as the champion
advocating on behalf of small island nation states and a loose coalition of concerned countries from
the Pacific to the Caribbean, but with support from the United States. He addressed the
comprehensive concerns of small island nations regarding the weaknesses of the deal, while
simultaneously making clear that the Paris Agreement signified hope for the countries most at risk.
In a formal statement, Debrum declared: "We have made history today. Emissions targets are still
way off track, but this agreement has the tools to ramp up ambition, and brings a spirit of hope that
we can rise to this challenge. I can go back home to my people and say we now have a pathway to
survival.” Debrum highlighted the imperatives of Pacific island nations, saying, “Our High
Ambition Coalition was the lightning rod we needed to lift our sights and expectations for a strong
agreement here in Paris. We were joined by countries representing more than half the world. We
said loud and clear that a bare-bones, minimalist agreement would not fly. We instead demanded an
agreement to mark a turning point in history, and the beginning of our journey to the post-carbon
era.”
Debrum of the Marshall Islands espoused the quintessential synopsis of the accord and its effects
for those most likely to be affected by climate change as he noted, “Climate change won’t stop
overnight, and my country is not out of the firing line just yet, but today we all feel a little safer.”
Editor's Entry on Environmental Policy:
The low-lying Pacific island nations of the world, including Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands,
Fiji, among others, are vulnerable to the threats posed by global warming and cimate change,
derived from carbon emissions, and resulting in the rise in sea level. Other island nations in the
Caribbean, as well as poor countries with coastal zones, were also at particular risk of suffering the
deleterious effects of climate change.
Political policy in these countries are often connected to ecological issues, which have over time
morphed into an existential crisis of sorts. Indeed, ecological concerns and the climate crisis have
also been dominant themes with life and death consequences for the people of island nations in the
Pacific. Indeed, the very livelihoods of fishing and subsistence farming remain at risk as a result of
ecological and environmental changes. Yet even so, these countries are threatened by increasingly
India Review 2017
Page 418 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
high storm surges, which could wipe out entire villages and contaminate water supplies. Moreover,
because these are low lying island nations, the sustained rise in sea level can potentially lead to the
terrain of these countries being unihabitable at best, and submerged at worst. Stated in plain terms,
these countries are at severe risk of being obliterated from the map and their plight illuminates the
emerging global challenge of environmental refugees. In these manifold senses, climate change is
the existential crisis of the contemporary era.
Since the time of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, there have been efforts aimed at extending the life of
that agreement, with an eye on minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, and thus minimizing the
effects of climate change. Those endeavors have largely ended in failure, as exemplified by the
unsuccessful Copenhagen talks in 2009 and the fruitless Doha talks in 2012 respectively. The
success of the COP 21 talks in France, with the adoption of the landmark Paris Agreement in
2015, was regarded as the first glimmer of hope. Not only did the Paris Agreement signify the
triumph of international diplomacy and global consensus, but it also marked the start of the end of
the fossil fuel era, with the path forward toward a low carbon future reliant on greener
technologies. Most crucially, the Paris Agreement stood as the first significant response in recent
times to the central challenge of climate change and its quotidian effects on the lives of real human
beings across the world.
1. Major International Environmental Accords:
General Environmental Concerns
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Espoo, 1991.
Accords Regarding Atmosphere
Annex 16, vol. II (Environmental Protection: Aircraft Engine Emissions) to the 1044 Chicago
Convention on International Civil Aviation, Montreal, 1981
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), Geneva, 1079
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), New York, 1002
Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Vienna, 1985 including the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Depleted the Ozone Layer, Montreal, 1987
India Review 2017
Page 419 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Accords Regarding Hazardous Substances
Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movements
and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa, Bamako, 1991
Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Caused during Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road,
Rail and Inland Navigation Vessels (CRTD), Geneva, 1989
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
(Basel Convention), Basel, 1989
Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, Helsinki, 1992
Convention to Ban the Importation into Forum Island Countries of Hazardous and Radioactive
Wastes and to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes
within the South Pacific Region (Waigani Convention), Waigani, 1995
European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR),
Geneva 1957
FAO International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, Rome, 1985
2. Major International Marine Accords:
Global Conventions
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter
(London Convention 1972), London, 1972
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by
Protocol of 1978 relation thereto (MARPOL 73/78), London, 1973 and 1978
International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (1969 CLC), Brussels,
1969, 1976, and 1984
International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil
Pollution Damage 1971 (1971 Fund Convention), Brussels, 1971
Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of
Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS), London 1996
India Review 2017
Page 420 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response, and Co-operation (OPRC),
London, 1990
International Convention Relation to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution
Casualties (Intervention Convention), Brussels, 1969
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Montego Bay, 1982
Regional Conventions
Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft (Oslo
Convention), Oslo, 1972
Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources (Paris Convention),
Paris, 1974
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (OSPAR
Convention), Paris, 1992
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (1974 Helsinki
Convention), Helsinki 1974
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (1992 Helsinki
Convention), Helsinki 1992
Conventions within the UNEP Regional Seas Programme
Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution, Bucharest, 1992
Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider
Caribbean Region, Cartagena de Indias, 1983
Convention for the Protection, Management, and Development of the Marine and Coastal
Environment of the Eastern African Region, Nairobi, 1985
Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on the Protection of the Marine Environment from
Pollution, Kuwait, 1978
Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment and Coastal Region of
India Review 2017
Page 421 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
the Mediterranean Sea (Barcelona Convention), Barcelona, 1976
Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment, Jeddah,
1982
Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific
Region, Noumea, 1986
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Area of the South-East
Pacific, Lima, 1981
Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal
Environment of the West and Central African Region, Abidjan, 1981
3. Major Conventions Regarding Living Resources:
Marine Living Resources
Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), Canberra,
1980
International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), Rio de Janeiro, 1966
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), Washington, 1946
Nature Conservation and Terrestrial Living Resources
Antarctic Treaty, Washington, D.C., 1959
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage
Convention), Paris, 1972
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Nairobi, 1992
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Bonn, 1979
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES),
Washington, D.C., 1973
India Review 2017
Page 422 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar
Convention), Ramsar, 1971
Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD), Paris 1994
FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, 1983
International Tropical Timber Agreement, 1994 (ITTA, 1994), Geneva, 1994
Freshwater Resources
Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes,
Helsinki, 1992
4. Major Conventions Regarding Nuclear Safety:
Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency
(Assistance Convention), Vienna, 1986
Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (Notification Convention), Vienna, 1986
Convention on Nuclear Safety, Vienna, 1994
Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, Vienna, 1963
5. Major Intergovernmental Organizations
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
European Union (EU): Environment
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Global Environment Facility (GEF)
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
India Review 2017
Page 423 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
International Labour Organization (ILO)
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPC Funds)
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Environment Policy
Committee (EPOC)
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
World Bank
World Food Programme (WFP)
World Health Organization (WHO)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
World Trade Organization (WTO)
6. Major Non-Governmental Organizations
Atmosphere Action Network East Asia (AANEA)
India Review 2017
Page 424 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Climate Action Network (CAN)
Consumers International (CI)
Earth Council
Earthwatch Institute
Environmental Liaison Centre International (ELCI)
European Environmental Bureau (EEB)
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
Friends of the Earth International (FoEI)
Greenpeace International
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
International Solar Energy Society (ISES)
IUCN-The World Conservation Union
Pesticide Action Network (PAN)
Sierra Club
Society for International Development (SID)
Third World Network (TWN)
Water Environment Federation (WEF)
Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO)
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
India Review 2017
Page 425 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
World Federalist Movement (WFM)
World Resources Institute (WRI)
World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF)
7. Other Networking Instruments
Arab Network for Environment and Development (RAED)
Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE)
Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC)
United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS)
India Review 2017
Page 426 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Appendices
India Review 2017
Page 427 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sources: Key Data
Altapedia. URL: http://www.atlapedia.com/online/country_index.htm
Ethnologue. URL: http://www.ethnologue.com
Geobase Global Statistics. URL: http://www.geoba.se
Infoplease: URL: http://www.infoplease.com
The Statesman's Year Book 2006. Barry Turner, ed. London: St. Martin's Press.
United States D e p a r t m e n t o f S t a t e , B a c k g r o u n d N o t e s . U R L :
http://www.state.gov/www/background_notes/index.htm
United States Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook. Washington, D.C.: Printing and
Photography Group. URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
World Bank. URL: http://www.worldbank.org/
World Climate Data Online. URL: http://www.worldclimate.com
Methodology Note for Demographic Data:
The demographic numbers for cities and national populations listed in CountryWatch content are
derived from the Geoba.se website, which analyzes data from the World Bank. The current
demographic numbers displayed on the Countrywatch website are reflective of the latest available
estimates.
The demographic information for language, ethnicity and religion listed in CountryWatch content is
India Review 2017
Page 428 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
derived from a mix of sources including the Altapedia, Central Intelligence Agency Factbook,
Infoplease, and State Department Background Notes.
Sources: Political Overview
Agence France Presse. URL: http://www.afp.com/en/
BBC International News. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ (Various editions and dates as
cited in particular reviews)
Britannica Book of the Year. 1998-present. David Calhoun, ed. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica,
Inc.
Britannica Online URL :http://www.eb.com
Britannica Year in Review. URL: http://www.britannica.com/browse/year
Chiefs of State and Cabinet Members of Foreign Governments. URL:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/chiefs/index.html
Christian Science Monitor. URL: http://www.csmonitor.com/ (Various editions and dates as cited
in particular reviews)
CNN International News. URL:http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/ (Various editions and dates as cited
in particular reviews)
Current Leaders of Nations. 1997. Jennifer Mossman, ed. Detroit: Gale Research
The Economist Magazine. (Various editions and dates as cited in particular reviews)
The Economist Country Briefings. URL: http://www.economist.com/countries/
Eldis Country Profiles. URL: http://www.eldis.org/country/index.htm
Elections Around the World. URL: http://www.electionworld.org/
Election Resources. URL: http://electionresources.org/
Europa World Yearbook 1999. Vols. I & II. 1999. London: Europa Publications Ltd.
India Review 2017
Page 429 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Europe World Online. URL: http://www.europaworld.com/pub/
Financial Times. URL: http://www.financialtimes.com
Foreign Government Resources. URL: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/foreign.html
Human Rights Watch. URL: http://www.hrw.org
IFES Election Guide. URL: http://www.electionguide.org
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. URL: http://www.idea.int/
International Who's Who 1997-1998, 61st Edition. 1997. London: Europa Publications Ltd.
L e a d e r s h i p V i e w s , C h i e f s o f
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/chiefs/index.html
S t a t e
O n l i n e .
U R L
:
Library of Congress Country Studies. URL: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html
New Encyclopedia Britannica. 1998. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.
New York Times. URL: http://www.nytimes.com (Various editions and dates as cited in
particular reviews)
Patterns of Global Terrorism. n.d. United States Department of State. Washington D.C.: United
States Department of State Publications.
Political Handbook of the World. n.d. Arthur S. Banks, Thomas C. Muller, ed. Binghamton, New
York: CSA Publications.
Political Reference Almanac Online. URL: http://www.polisci.com/almanac/nations.htm
Reuters News. URL: http://www.reuters.com/
Rulers. URL: http://rulers.org/
The Guardian Online. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
particular reviews)
(Various editions and dates as cited in
The Statesman's Year-Book 2006. Barry Turner, ed. London: St. Martin's Press.
India Review 2017
Page 430 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
United Nations Development Programme. URL: http://hdr.undp.org
United Nations Refugee Agency. URL: http://www.unhcr.org
United States Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook.Washington, D.C.: Printing and
Photography Group. URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
United States Department of State, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers (WMEAT)
URL : http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/bureau_ac/reports_ac.html
United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. URL:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18245.htm
United States D e p a r t m e n t o f S t a t e , B a c k g r o u n d N o t e s . U R L :
http://www.state.gov/www/background_notes/index.html
Virtual Library: International Relations Resources. URL: http://www.etown.edu/vl/countgen.html
World Bank: Governance Indicators. URL: http://info.worldbank.org/governance
-- See also list of News Wires services below, which are also used for research purposes. -Note on Edition Dates:
The earlier edition dates are noted above because they were used to formulate the original Country
Reviews and serve as the baseline for some of the information covered. Later editions have been
used in some cases, and are cited as such, while other more recent online resources (cited above)
contain recent and ever-updated data sets used for research.
Sources: Economic Overview
BP Statistical Review of World Energy. URL: http://www.bp.com/genericsection.do?
categoryId=92&contentId=7005893
BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 1998. 1998 to present. Page 1.C. London: The
British Petroleum Company.
International Monetary Fund, Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook. Washington, D.C.:
International Monetary Fund Publication Services.
India Review 2017
Page 431 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics. 1998 to present. Washington,
D.C.: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.
International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics Yearbook. 1999 to present.
Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.
International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook, May 1999. 1999 to present. Washington,
D.C.: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.
International Labour Office, World Employment Report, 1998-99. 1998 to present. Geneva:
International Labour Office.
United Nations Statistical Division Online. URL: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/default.htm
United Nations Statistics Division, Monthly Bulletin of Statistics (MBS On Line), November 1999
Edition. 1999 to present. New York: United Nations.
United Nations, Statistical Yearbook, 43rd Issue. 1999. 1999 to present New York: United Nations.
United Nations, Food & Agricultural Organization, FAOSTAT Database. URL : http://apps.fao.org/
United Nations, Comtrade Data Base, http://comtrade.un.org/
United States Department of Energy, Country Analysis Briefs.
URL:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Database
United States Geological Service, Mineral Information
United States Department of State, Country Commercial Guides. Washington, D.C. United States
of America. URL:http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/business/com_guides/index.html
The World Bank, Global Development Finance, Country Tables. 1999 to present. Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank.
The World Bank Group, World Development Indicators. 1999 to present. Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank.
Yearbook of Tourism Statistics, World Tourism Organization. 1998 to present. Madrid: The World
Tourism Organization.
India Review 2017
Page 432 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Note on Edition Dates:
The earlier edition dates are noted above because they were used to formulate the original country
reviews and serve as the baseline for some of the information covered. Later editions have been
used in some cases, and are cited as such, while other more recent online resources (cited above)
contain recent and ever-updated data sets used for research.
Methodology Notes for Economic Data:
Estimates by CountryWatch.com of GDP in dollars in most countries are made by converting local
currency GDP data from the International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook to US dollars
by market exchange rates estimated from the International Monetary Fund International Financial
Statistics and projected out by the CountryWatch Macroeconomic Forecast. Real GDP was
estimated by deflating current dollar values by the US GDP Implicit Price Deflator.
Exceptions to this method were used for:
• Bosnia-Herzegovina
• Nauru
• Cuba
• Palau
• Holy See
• San Marino
• Korea, North
• Serbia & Montenegro
• Liberia
• Somalia
• Liechtenstein
• Tonga
• Monaco
• Tuvalu
In these cases, other data and/or estimates by CountryWatch.com were utilized.
Investment Overview
C o r r u p t i o n a n d T r a n s p a r e n c y
http://www.transparency.org/documents/cpi/2001/cpi2001.html#cpi
<http://www.transparency.org/documents/
I n d e x .
U R L :
Deloitte Tax Guides. URL: http://www.deloittetaxguides.com
India Review 2017
Page 433 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Trade Policy Reviews by the World Trade Organization .
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp_rep_e.htm#bycountry
URL:
United States Department of Energy, Country Analysis Briefs. URL:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html
United States D e p a r t m e n t o f S t a t e , B a c k g r o u n d N o t e s . U R L :
http://www.state.gov/www/background_notes/index.html
United States Department of State, Country Commercial Guides. 1996-2006. Washington, D.C.
U n i t e d S t a t e s
o f
A m e r i c a .
U R L :
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/business/com_guides/index.html
World Bank: Doing Business. URL: http://www.doingbusiness.org
World Bank: Governance Indicators. URL: http://info.worldbank.org/governance
Social Overview
Borden, G.A., Conaway, W.A., Morrison, T. 1994. Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands: How to do
Business in Sixty Countries. Holbrook, Massachusetts, 1994.
Center for Disease Control. URL: http://www.cdc.gov
Eldis Country Profiles. URL: http://www.eldis.org/country/index.htm
Ethnologue. URL: http://www.ethnologue.com/
Government of Australia D e p a r t m e n t o f F o r e i g n A f f i a r s a n d T r a d e . U R L :
http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo
Government of
Canada F o r e i g n A f f a i r s a n d I n t e r n a t i o n a l T r a d e . U R L :
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/consular_home-e.htm
Library of Congress Country Studies. URL: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html
Lonely Planet. URL: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/
Steve Kropla's Online Help For World Travelers. URL: http://www.kropla.com/
India Review 2017
Page 434 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
United Kingdom Ministry of Foreign and Commonwealth Office. URL: http://www.fco.gov.uk/
United Nations Human Development Report. URL: http://www.undp.org/hdro
UNICEF Statistical Database Online. URL: http://www.unicef.org/statis/atoz.html
United States Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook. 2001. Washington, D.C.: Printing and
Photography Group. URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
United States Department of State, Background Notes. URL:
http://www.state.gov/www/background_notes/index.html
United States Department of State, Commercial and Business Affairs: Travel Tips. URL:
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/business/cba_travel.html
United States Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs. URL: http://travel.state.gov/
World Health Organization. URL: http://www.who.int/home-page/
World News Connection, National Technical Information Service. Springfield, Virginia, USA.
Internet News Service, Xinhua News Agency (U.S.) Inc. Woodside, New York. URL:
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/
Note on Edition Dates:
The earlier edition dates are noted above because they were used to formulate the original country
reviews and serve as the baseline for some of the information covered. Later editions have been
used in some cases, and are cited as such, while other more recent online resources (cited above)
contain recent and ever-updated data sets used for research.
Methodology Notes for the HDI:
Since 1990, the United Nations Development Programme, in concert with organizations across the
globe, has produced the Human Development Index (or HDI). According to the UNDP, the index
measures average achievement in basic human development in one simple composite index, and
produces from this index a ranking of countries. The HDI is a composite of three basic
components of human development: longevity, knowledge and standard of living. Longevity is
measured by life expectancy. Knowledge is measured by combination of adult literacy and mean
India Review 2017
Page 435 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
years of schooling. Standard of living is measured by purchasing power, based on real GDP per
capita (in constant US$) adjusted for differences in international living costs (or, purchasing power
parity, PPP). While the index uses these social indicators to measure national performance with
regard to human welfare and development, not all countries provide the same level of information
for each component needed to compute the index; therefore, as in any composite indicator, the
final index is predicated on projections, predictions and weighting schemes. The index is a static
measure, and thus, an incomplete measure of human welfare. In fact, the UNDP says itself the
concept of human development focuses on the ends rather than the means of development and
progress, examining in this manner, the average condition of all people in a given country.
Specifically, the index is calculated by determining the maximum and minimum for each of the
three components (as listed above) and then measuring where each country stands in relation to
these scales-expressed as a value between 0 and 1. For example, the minimum adult literary rate is
zero percent, the maximum is 100 percent, and the reading skills component of knowledge in the
HDI for a country where the literacy rate is 75 percent would be 0.75. The scores of all indicators
are then averaged into the overall index.
For a more extensive examination of human development, as well as the ranking tables for each
participating country, please visit: http://www.undp.org
Note on History sections
In some CountryWatch Country Reviews, open source content from the State Department
Background Notes and Country Guides have been used.
Environmental Overview
Environmental Profiles: A Global Guide to Projects and People. 1993. Linda Sobel Katz, Sarah
Orrick, and Robert Honig. New York: Garland Publishing.
The Environment Encyclopedia and Directory, 2nd Edition. 1998. London: Europa.
Environmental Protection Agency Global Warming Site. URL: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming
Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations: Forestry. URL:
http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/sofo/en/
Global Warming Information Page. URL: http://globalwarming.org
Introduction to Global Environmental Issues, 2nd Edition. 1997. Kevin Pickering and Lewis Owen.
India Review 2017
Page 436 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
London: Routledge.
Trends: Compendium of Data on Global Change.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm
U n i t e d N a t i o n s E n v i r o n m e n t a l
http://www.unep.org/GEO/GEO_Products/Assessment_Reports/
P r o g r a m .
URL:
U R L :
United Nations Global Environmental Outlook. URL: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/
United States Department of Energy, Country Analysis Briefs. URL:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html
World Climate Data Online. URL: http://www.worldclimate.com
World Directory of Country Environmental Studies. 1996. The World Resource Institute.
World Factbook. US Central Intelligence Agency. Washington, D.C.: Printing and Photography
Group.
1998-1999 World Resources Guide to the Global Environment by the World Resources Institute.
May, 1998.
1998/1999 Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development. 1998.
London: Earthscan Publications.
Note on Edition Dates:
The earlier edition dates are noted above because they were used to formulate the original country
reviews and serve as the baseline for some of the information covered. Later editions have been
used in some cases, and are cited as such, while other more recent online resources (cited above)
contain recent and ever-updated data sets used for research.
Other Sources:
General information has also been used in the compilation of this review, with the courtesy of
governmental agencies from this country.
News Services:
India Review 2017
Page 437 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
CANA Daily Bulletin. Caribbean Media Agency Ltd., St. Michael, Barbados.
Central and Eastern Africa Report, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs - Integrated Regional Information Network for Central and Eastern Africa.
Daily News, Panafrican News Agency. Dakar, Senegal.
PACNEWS, Pacific Islands Broadcasting Association. Suva, Fiji.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Washington D.C. USA.
Reuters News. Thomson Reuters. New York, New York. USA.
Southern Africa Report, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Integrated Regional Information Network for Southern Africa.
Voice of America, English Service. Washington D.C.
West Africa Report, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Integrated Regional Information Network for West Africa. 1998-1999
Note: Some or all these news services have been used to research various sections of this Country
Review.
USING COUNTRYWATCH.COM AS AN ELECTRONIC SOURCE:
MLA STYLE OF CITATION
Commentary
For items in a "Works Cited" list, CountryWatch.com suggests that users follow recommended
patterns forindentation given in the MLA Handbook, 4th edition.
Individual Works
Basic form, using an Internet protocol:
India Review 2017
Page 438 of 440 pages
Country OverView
Pending
Author/editor. Title of Print Version of Work. Edition statement (if given). Publication information
(Place of publication: publisher, date), if given. Title of Electronic Work. Medium. Available
Protocol (if applicable):Site/Path/File. Access date.
Examples:
Youngblood-Coleman, Denise. Country Review: France. 2003. Houston, Texas: CountryWatch
Publications, 2003.
C o u n t r y R e v i e w : F r a n c e. O n l i n e . A v a i l a b l e U R L :
http://www.countrywatch.com/cw_country.asp?vCOUNTRY=61 October, 12, 2003.
Note:
This is the citation format used when the print version is not used in the reference.
Parts of Works
Basic form, using an Internet protocol:
Author/editor. "Part title." Title of Print Version of Work. Edition statement (if given). Publication
information (Place of publication: publisher, date), if given. Title of Electronic Work. Medium.
AvailableProtocol (if applicable): Site/Path/File. Access date.
Examples:
Youngblood-Coleman, Denise. "People." CountryWatch.com: France. 2003. Houston, Texas:
CountryWatch Publications, 2003. CountryWatch.com: France. Online. Available URL :
http://www.countrywatch.com/cw_topic.asp?
vCOUNTRY=61&SECTION=SOCIAL&TOPIC=CLPEO&TYPE=TEXT. October 12, 2003.
Note:
This is the citation format used when the print version is not used in the reference.
For further source citation information, please email: [email protected] or
[email protected].
India Review 2017
Page 439 of 440 pages
CountryWatch
CountryWatch is an information provider for public and private sector organizations that operate globally.
The management of CountryWatch has extensive international experience and has utilized this experience to
provide a concise and useful set of political, economic, and business information for its clients in the form
of Country Reviews, the Country Wire, CountryWatch Data, Elections Central, CountryWatch Videos and
CountryWatch Forecast.
This Country Review is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information on the subject matter
covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publication is not intended to provide legal, accounting,
investment, or other professional advice.
CountryWatch believes that the information and opinions contained here in are reliable, but does not make
any warranties, express or implied, and assumes no liability for reliance on or use of the information or
opinions contained herein.
The offices of CountryWatch are located at:
CountryWatch, Inc.
5005 Riverway Suite 220
Houston, Texas 77056 U.S.A.
Tel: 800-879-3885
Fax: 713-355-3770
Web address: http://www.countrywatch.com
Email: [email protected]
ISBN: 1- 60523- 693-4
ISSN: 1- 60523- 893-5
Printed in the United States of America
India Country Review
2017