Search

By Sanjay Turi Instead of pursuing truth or justice, Canada holds on to politically driven accusations, designed to distract from its own failures. The current diplomatic tensions between India and Canada following India's alleged involvement in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar- a notorious Khalistani terrorist - highlight how the phenomenon of migration and ethnic diasporas are increasingly determining the foreign policies of host countries. The contemporary scenario is marked with acclaimed migration as one of the topmost highly-debated political issues around the globe. People of liberal states are sharply divided among themselves in their ideologies over the issue of migration. The proponents tilt towards the idea of providing refuge to them for humanitarian considerations and global equality awareness. In contrast, the opponents argue against the same by claiming that the influx of migrants poses a serious threat to the job opportunities and survival of native groups. The current scenario in Canada, where the Sikh diaspora has exerted tremendous influence on foreign policy, highlights this tension in the context of global migrations. The mere fact that the Sikh community has played a significant role in shaping Canada’s internal and external policies, especially with respect to its ties with India, is again bringing this conflict into focus regarding whether migration among the countries should be encouraged or not. Currently, Canada is under a coalition government , where the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC), led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau governs along with the New Democratic Party ( NDP ) led by Jagmeet Singh. That role is particularly important for Canada-India relations as the transborder migration of the Sikh community has continued to shape the foreign policy of the host country. The Sikh presence in Canada dates back to the late 19th century. Today, they have prospered and emerged as one of the most important minority groups in the country, known for their active participation in politics and economic success. The Canadian Sikh diaspora, today with more than 700,000  Sikhs is one of the largest Sikh populations outside India, with strong concentrations in provinces such as British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. There are stages of Sikh migration to Canada, but a large number of Sikhs in Canada primarily came from families who immigrated during times of political turmoil in India, especially in the 1980s when tensions between the Indian government and Sikh separatist movements were at their height. Though Sikh diaspora makes up a prominent part of Canadian political life, with leaders like Jagmeet Singh, chief of the New Democratic Party, and many other Sikh members of Canadian parliament as well as cabinet ministers. This has, in turn, influenced Canadian politicians to address the Sikh community’s concerns, related to human rights and religious liberty as well as India’s internal politics, which in turn continues to affect Canada’s foreign policy stance toward India   While the Khalistan movement has decreased significantly in India, it still holds significant support among certain radical Sikh groups within Canada. Khalistani activists in Canada, where they have been able to hold referendums and protests among other events in support of the separatist movement that India sees as a serious threat to its sovereignty, territorial integrity and national security. The Indian government is continuously expressing concerns about the pro-Khalistani groups being active in Canada, accusing the so-called " liberal " Canadian government of supporting extremism and terrorism. It has been urged time and again by the Government of India to crack down on such groups, but Ottawa under domestic political pressure is quite ignorant and soft on them. This attitude of the Canadian government continues to fuel the diplomatic row between India and Canada in recent times. Canada, for its part, defends these activities on the grounds of freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in its constitution. Prime Minister Trudeau has repeatedly emphasised that Canada does not agree with the Khalistan movement, but strongly believes in allowing its citizens to express their political views peacefully. That view of the Trudeau government is interpreted by many as a bid to win the support of Canada's Sikh community – more than 2.1%  of its population and thus a sizable voting bloc. Therefore, even if Prime Minister Trudeau wishes to strengthen relations with India and respect its territorial integrity by cracking down on Sikh separatists living in Canada, he(Trudeau) would face substantial domestic pressure from the Sikh population, resulting in a significant decline in his electoral performance.   Trudeau’s reliance on the NDP, which has a very strong Sikh base, further complicates matters. Having recently survived two no-confidence motions , Trudeau cannot afford to alienate his coalition partner, Jagmeet Singh, or risk losing Sikh support ahead of the general election expected to be held next year in October.  This is exacerbated by the fact that Trudeau's government highly depends on the New Democratic Party(NDP) — a party with strong Sikh support, probably playing the role of King-Maker.   The recent diplomatic tension between Canada and India is a microcosm of a wider trend in global politics — where migration and diaspora politics are shaping home-grown policy more than ever before. Across the European continent, concerns about immigration—often framed in terms of national security, cultural preservation, and economic impact—are unilaterally driving political discourse in society. The negative impact of the Sikh Diaspora within Canada which impacts its foreign policy is perhaps a warning or wake-up call for multicultural societies such as European states. This seems to be possibly fuelling a further backlash against immigration. This may potentially lead to stricter policies on immigration and deportation of migrants globally, disproportionately affecting African and Asian communities who often come from disadvantaged backgrounds in search of better lives.   Mr Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General,  was a strong supporter of state sovereignty , once said in his speech that interfering in another country's internal affairs has the potential to undermine international cooperation and peace. He also said that supporting separatist groups for political benefits, generally results in "an endless cycle of retaliation" that harms the existing global multilateral cooperations for the greater good and undermines the idea of diplomacy in International Relations. Therefore, to promote the idea of Vashudaiv Kutumbakam  and prevent any such confrontations, countries, today, must follow the directions provided by the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. #Canada #Diaspora #India This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog Sanjay Turi is a Doctoral Candidate at the Centre for West Asian Studies (CWAS), School of International Studies(SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

By Madhulika, Snehil Shukla, Sayantan Bandyopadhyay, Nadeem Iquebal, Chandan Kamath, Vijaylaxmi Pal At the heart of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Ganga Dhaba stands humbly as a buzzing hub of ideas and debate, where conversations flow as freely as the chai and debates echo into the cool evening air. Small in structure but immense in significance, Ganga Dhaba serves as a gathering ground for students, faculty, research scholars, and visitors alike, drawn in by its affordable tea and snacks, priced to be accessible to all. More than just a spot for late-night refreshments, it has become an enduring symbol of JNU's ethos of intellectual freedom, critical dialogue, and democratic spirit.   Originally established in the 1980s by Bharat Tomar as a humble tea stall, Ganga Dhaba swiftly evolved into a central hub for the university community, where students engage in passionate debates on subjects ranging from Marxism and feminism to caste politics and foreign policy, often continuing late into the night. “Despite its modest size, Ganga Dhaba has preserved its affordability, with a cup of chai costing just Rs. 10 and an aloo paratha also at Rs. 10, ensuring it remains accessible to students from all walks of life,” shared Harish, the current shop manager.   This unassuming eatery has been frequented by some of India’s most influential intellectuals and politicians during their formative years in JNU, many of whom credit their political awakening to the late-night discussions at Ganga Dhaba. Figures like Sitaram Yechury, Nirmala Sitharaman, and S. Jaishankar, have all spent evenings immersed in debate here, surrounded by fellow students as eager to discuss the intricacies of global affairs as they were to unpack domestic issues. For those who sat on these stone benches with steaming cups of chai, Ganga Dhaba was nothing less than an open classroom where ideas could be tested, arguments refined, and perspectives broadened. More than a place for debates, Ganga Dhaba is a sanctuary for dissent and activism, integral to JNU’s culture of social and political engagement. When the university administration threatened to close it for nonpayment of dues, modernization, and hygiene reasons, students rallied to preserve it. To them, the Dhaba was more than a food joint—it was the heart of campus life, embodying camaraderie, learning, and resilience.   With the U.S. presidential elections taking centre stage, Ganga Dhaba has become a hub for lively discussions. On the night of November 5th, doctoral scholars gathered at the Dhaba, sipping chai and munching on samosas, as they debated how the election’s outcome might impact India's future. Nikhil Biswas from the Centre for African Studies, School of International Studies, sipped his coffee while passionately endorsing Trump. He argued that Trump’s approach, particularly on Syria, favoured stability by leaving it to Russia, and he dismissed the possibility of the U.S. embracing a female president anytime soon. Nearby sat Dhirendra Kumar of the Centre for South Asian Studies, who countered Nikhil’s view with his support for Kamala Harris. He appreciated her inclusive policies and her Indian heritage, which he believed could foster stronger ties with India. Dhirendra highlighted what he saw as Trump’s patriarchal stance, restrictive immigration policies, and the hurdles he posed for Indians pursuing education and work in the U.S. The debate intensified as Nikhil defended Trump’s appeal to everyday Americans facing high living costs and job crises.   Nitish Kumar, a Ph.D. scholar from the Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies, then chimed in, drawing attention to the potential disruptions in trade policy under another Trump presidency. He explained that Trump has previously labelled India a “Tariff King” and a “very big abuser” in trade, pointing out that India’s average tariff rate of 17% far exceeds those of Japan, the U.S., and the EU. Alok, who stood beside him sipping a bottle of Lahori Zeera, added that Trump’s “America First” policy had already led to tariffs on Indian steel and aluminium in his previous term. “That’s why I’m hoping for Kamala’s win,” he remarked.   As the discussion unfolded, some students from Jamia Millia Islamia, waiting for friends nearby, joined in. Their perspective added a sobering dimension to the conversation. One Jamia student remarked, “It doesn’t matter whether Kamala wins or Trump; the ongoing genocide in Gaza is likely to continue.” Another added, “I’m not interested in the U.S. election at all. It’s not going to do any good for the people of Palestine.” The debate took a more reflective turn when an alumnus from the Centre for the Study of Social Systems joined, cautioning that renewed U.S.-China tensions could negatively impact India. He suggested that Trump’s relationship with American voters might see him through, even as he doubted Harris’s call for “a new generation of leaders” would resonate. As the night grew colder, Sankhar Da, the owner of the neighbouring saloon, strolled by, musing, “It doesn’t matter who wins as long as there’s a peaceful transition of power.” His words brought a calm end to the conversation, underscoring the Dhaba’s role as a democratic space where diverse opinions clash yet ultimately converge around a shared commitment to India’s future in a complex global order. In this spirited corner of JNU, students blend the personal with the political as they refine their perspectives on international relations, blending the personal with the political. #JNU #GangaDhabha #USElections This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Sayantan Bandyopadhyay, Madhulika, Nadeem Iquebal, Snehil Shukla, Vijaylaxmi Pal, and Chandan Kamath are Doctoral Research Scholars at the School of International Studies, JNU.

By Kuldeep Ojha The Chilean Foreign Minister His Excellency Mr. Alberto Van Klaveren’s visit to India during the last week of August 2024 marked a significant touchpoint in the Indo-Chile bilateral ties. As the first such visit in the past decade, it facilitated progress on trade, investment, environment and technological cooperation between the two Global South actors. On India’s part, the renewed momentum in ties with the Latin American state demonstrates its diplomatic commitment to engaging with the Global South on win-win terms. In an uncertain geopolitical environment, both India and Chile are prudently diversifying into new set of diplomatic ties beyond their traditional concerns to hedge their bets and achieve their foreign policy goals through new avenues. The foreign minister’s visit also included a sojourn to India’s premier international relations institution, the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). A key element of his address included the promotion of education and knowledge exchange between the two countries. Welcomed by Professor Amitabh Mattoo, the Dean of the School of International Studies, the Minister addressed Chile’s role in world geopolitics and the potential for bilateral cooperation in the fields of trade, diplomacy, education and business. In this article, based on the Minister’s remarks at JNU, this article analyzes the current state of India-Chile  bilateral relationship and future avenue for cooperation. Economic Cooperation: Expanding Trade and Investment Ties India and Chile are strengthening trade cooperation, particularly in the areas of agriculture, pharmaceuticals and staple foods. The Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA) , signed between the two countries in 2006, has played a significant role in reducing customs duties on over 1,000 products. The trade composition majorly consists of India’s imports of Chilean fruits and wines and its export of agricultural products and medicines. The key focus of the Chilean foreign minister’s visit included the discussion on the introduction of a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) between the two countries. During the bilateral talks with the Commerce Minister of India, Mr. Piyush Goyal, both parties stressed the need for the development of economic cooperation through the framework of market access and cooperation in a new and promising field for Chile and India, namely, critical minerals. The Chile-India Business (Agriculture) Summit in Mumbai  also proved its ability to bring back the agricultural trade between the two countries. Efforts have also been made to address the longstanding concerns regarding sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, a move deemed crucial to spur fresh supplies of commodities including basmati rice, rose and kidney beans among others. Chile on its part wants to secure the portion of the Indian market share of wines and nuts.    Critical Minerals: Promoting Green Energy Collaboration Out of all the sectors for collaboration that was under discussion during the visit, one of the most crucial one included critical mineral. As the global leader in the lithium ore segment and the second largest producer of copper, Chile holds an important position in the global supply chain of renewable energy sources. India’s growing appetite for electric vehicle (EV) and renewable energy has created an immediate need for these minerals, most importantly lithium which is used for battery production. Moreover, China’s remarkable domination of the EV market and critical mineral supply chain provide an additional incentive on part of India to collaborate with Chile. The obvious rationale, when it comes to the strategic thinking of cutting the risks of economic over-dependence, could not be clearer in New Delhi’s equations. On the Chilean side, such political importance of economic interdependence and the need to diversify its markets could be the reasons that explain the keen interest to court a rising India. The Chilean Foreign Minister’s invitation to Indian firms to invest in lithium mining in Chile is a geopolitical chance for India to secure the supply of the mineral crucial to green transition. The gaining of technical know-how and a foothold in the lithium supply chain are to be counted as the long-term benefits for the Indian business sector. The collaboration further has the potential to result in technological exchange and joint partnerships around sustainable mining operations for economic and environmental benefits. Aligning Interests and Values in the Strategic Partnership India and Chile share a common ground in their commitment to democracy, human rights, and sustainable development. These shared values have the potential to serve as the bedrock of the growing bilateral relation. Both India and Chile support the use of diplomacy and peaceful means to resolve global problems and are committed to the rules-based international order. India’s EAM S Jaishankar has already expressed his appreciation for Chile’s support to India’s bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The Chilean minister’s speech at JNU touched upon the synergy between the two nations on international order, especially the agenda of reforming multilateral institutions. Consequently, in future, Indian diplomacy may do well to coordinate its position with Chile in international forums on matters of global importance.  The strategic dimension of the bilateral relationship has also attracted quite a lot of diplomatic interest because the conversation has been colored by the possibility of cooperation in the spheres of defense, technology and space. Leading private Indian defence sector actors, including BrahMos, Azista Industries and Goa Shipyard Limited, are involved in discussions with the Chilean Armed Forces to gain access to the lucrative market. MKU Limited has recently exhibited its latest products at FIDAE (International Air and Space Fair) 2024 , in turn consolidating the Indian footprint in Chile’s defence acquisitions market. The vast potential for the defence export on part of India remains untapped and the future performance of Indian firms deserve a close watch. As for the potential for deepening bilateral cooperation, another set of concerned activities include the current negotiations over the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA). While the full details are not available, the likely affected areas include cybersecurity, green energy, climate action, poverty reduction. The Chilean minister also paid much attention to regional integration in Latin America and Asia, where India and Chile can potentially take the leading part to address climate change, economic inequality, and global health issues. India’s prowess in generic medicines, expertise in the HADR missions, and promotion of the solar alliance can readily serve as the diplomatic blueprint to provide public goods in these regions.  Conclusion In conclusion, the momentum in the bilateral relationship warrants an optimistic outlook of the future trajectory, despite a rapidly developing Sino-Latin American relations, and substantial geographical and linguistic barriers between India-Latin America. The Chilean foreign minister’s visit to New Delhi and JNU serve to highlight the Latin American nation’s commitment to improve the relation with India by investing in people to people ties and scholarly exchanges. The visit also demonstrates India’s rising profile and its adroit diplomatic conduct, as well as the continued importance of JNU as the leading hub of IR scholarship in India. #IndiaChile This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog and is based on an open event not subject to the Chatham House Rules. Kuldeep Ojha is a PhD scholar in Latin American Studies at SIS, JNU. His research focuses on environmental governance in Central America, and his interests extend to the Latin American region and its geopolitics.

By Aarshiya Chowdhary “Standards are taking centre stage in global governance discussions. When countries gather in New Delhi for WTSA-24, they will have an opportunity to foster digital inclusion and trust — values that are more important than ever to ensure that innovation in fields like artificial intelligence, the metaverse, and quantum information technologies helps us create the future we want."  - Doreen Bogdan-Martin, ITU Secretary-General   Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a Small Wonder !   From the first AI Beauty Pageant   winner, Kenza Leyli , the first AI-driven Humanoid citizen , Sophia,  the proliferation of AI-driven haptic devices  like smartwatches to the increasing role of non-state actors like Taylor   Swift's AI-synthesised deep fake  in influencing electoral politics. Moreover, from the world’s first AI regulation  by the European Union (EU), Open AI’s Strawberry model  (sequel to ChatGPT), the adoption of the Global Digital Compact , the Nobel Prize 2024 (Physics) , to the recent release of Ananya Pandey starring ‘CNTRL ’ , Artificial Intelligence (AI) is intensely encapsulating human lives at light’s speed.   In light of this, the Information Telecommunication Union (ITU), the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) are spearheading the first edition of the International AI Standards Summit  at the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly ( WTSA-2024 ), being held from 14th October- 24th October 2024, in New Delhi, India. This year's World Standards Day theme is ‘Achieving Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure through AI’ , signifying the instrumental role of AI in transforming the digital space and ensuring an AI-driven sustainable future for all. The Birth of AI: The Smart Machine   The term AI was coined by American computer scientist and mathematician John McCarthy after the creation of LISP (a computer programming language based on a recursive mathematical function applied to a data set) in 1958. This programming language became fundamental to the birth of AI by enabling machines to ‘learn’ and imparted machines with 'intelligence' over a relay of past 'learnings' or 'experiences’. Basically, an AI machine cannot be asked to ' Forget The Past!’   Further, Artificial Intelligence gained traction with Alan Turing’s famous ‘Imitation Game’, also known as the ‘Turing Test’. In his remarkable paper, ‘ Computing Machinery and Intelligence , 1950 ’, Turing demonstrated the ability of machines to ‘think’, based on repeated mimicking or copying of humans in experimental conditions. This became the foundation of what Zuboff (1988) calls 'smart machines', highlighting their socio-economic implications on the different equations of power, particularly with the expansion of Information Technology (IT).   The Need for Standardisation of the AI Landscape: The Pros and Cons of an AI-driven Society   AI has a plethora of benefits, for instance, automated mechanical or creative work with greater efficiency and productivity, personalised online user experience, disaster risk mitigation based on geoclimatic data of a region and security enhancement of digital borders by filtering illegal migrants and identifying UAVs in the age of grey warfare and more.   However, there are downsides. First, it perpetuates inherent racial bias and gender discrimination as an outcome of deep-rooted social stereotypes and prejudices that get embedded in the technical architecture of AI networks. Second, the occurrence of false positives in identification processes. Third, Gen AI technologies like ChatGPT create artworks based on originals that violate IPRs (Intellectual Property Rights). Fourth, AI-created deep fakes facilitate the spread of disinformation and synthetic data. Fifth, there is an increased threat to cyber-security via machine-based phishing, spoofing and DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks. Sixth, training AI models have a heavy energy consumption footprint. Seventh, anonymity and pseudofication techniques with the support of AI augment cyber threats to a great extent. Eighth, AI can deeply erode an individual’s information privacy.   The challenges of an AI-based algorithmic society are exacerbated with the digital Brandt line , which undermines the efforts towards an equitable AI-driven society. The inequality in digital connectivity, access, and literacy results in the absence of fair representation of data from deprived regions, causing biases in AI training models. Also, the fragmentation of data protection laws, including the demand for data localisation by developing countries, inhibits data security and protection of digital rights, fuelling critical threats like profiling based on discrimination.   Standardising AI: The Global Efforts So Far   The first global-level move to advance a human-centric, trustworthy and responsible AI society saw the inception of the OECD-led Global Partnership for AI (GPAI) during the Covid (2020). This was followed by UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of AI  (2021). Of late, in March 2024, the UNGA adopted the landmark resolution on AI  and emphasised two essential priorities: bridging the digital divide and ensuring equal protection of the rights of individuals in the offline-online world, particularly throughout the life cycle of the AI systems. Further, the European Union pioneered the first AI Regulation Act, adopting a risk-based approach with a critical focus on personal data protection and AI literacy of all stakeholders in the AI ecosystem. Following the release of the Act, the Council of Europe has adopted the first-ever legally-binding AI treaty  to ensure global standardisation of AI with a strong intent to protect human rights, mitigate AI-based risks that undermine social cohesion and democracy, uphold the rule of law, and ensure a sustainable and inclusive AI-based global society. India: Voice of the Global South in the AI Landscape Notably, alongside the WTSA-2024, the world’s first International AI Standards Summit is being held in New Delhi, India, from the 14th-18th of October 2024. It is important to note that such an event is taking place in the Indo-Pacific for the first time. This reflects the Global South's growing multistakeholdership in setting of the global AI-standard regime and India's growing leadership role as the representative of the Global South in the backdrop of current domination of Global North in AI landscape.   Today, the Indo-Pacific construct is emerging as the Geotech heartland  of the digital international system as a consequence of accelerating digital development. Here, India is working towards expanding its foreign policy interests as well as mainstreaming the goals and aspirations of the Global South:   a)     India has strategically opted out of the ‘ Trade pillar ’ of the US-led IPEF, where digital trade fuelled by personal data, the new oil of the twenty-first century , is a crucial component.   b)    India hosted the third Voice of the Global South Summit  under the theme ‘ An Empowered Global South for a Sustainable Future ', with technology, digital transformation, IT, innovation and governance as key focus areas.   c)     India is a founding member of the OECD-led GPAI (Global Partnership Alliance for Artificial Intelligence), 2020, an initiative to enhance multi-stakeholder cooperation in global governance on AI rooted in three critical priorities- safe, secure and trustworthy AI. This pins India's proactive role in fostering cooperation in AI governance. At the GPAI 2024, the New Delhi declaration  called for collaborative efforts to pursue 'AI for the good of all’.   d)    India participated in the Outreach session on AI at the G7 Summit , pushing its values of 'AI for All'. Also, it is a member of the Quad Standards Sub-Group on AI  (2024) that aims to promote international cooperation and give impetus to coherent global AI governance through technical interoperability. Therefore, India has the potential of being a critical bridge between the West and the Global South in the digital domain.   e)     India is positioned 39th on the WIPO’s Global Innovation Index . It occupies the first position amongst lower middle-income economies. It has continued to emerge as an innovation outperformer for the 14th year in a row. Also, it is the world's third-largest start-up economy, with most start-ups being tech-led . Also, India ranks 10th  in private investment in AI development.   f)     India’s global success in digital public infrastructure (DPIs) , for example with the adoption of India’s UPI in Bhutan, Singapore and France , is a significant achievement and highlights its huge potential to be the backbone of a global AI ecosystem that is transparent, inclusive, diverse, accountable, open for cooperation, and a standards-based sustainable human-centric AI future.   g)    India is an emerging economy with an expanding data pool  of 120 crore mobile phone users and 95 crore internet users. A wide data pool paves its way to be a notable actor from the Global South in the AI regulatory landscape.   To conclude, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming and reconceptualising many aspects of human lives. Technology, particularly emerging technologies like AI, is instrumental in profoundly impacting the international world order. The digital divide in the AI landscape compels the developing world to be a dormant actor in the global governance of critical issues like AI. However, in recent times, amid the ongoing Sino-US technology rivalry, emerging economies like India from the Global South have a unique position. They are making headways to promote an ethical, inclusive, diverse and sustainable AI future. The World Standards Summit 2024, including the first AI international standards summit, is an apt moment to ensure an 'AI for Good for All' and achieve the essence of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 2030). #AI #WTSA2024 #INDIA This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog.     Aarshiya Chowdhary is a Doctoral Candidate at the Centre for European Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India, with her focus of research work on Data Protection, Information Privacy, Digital Rights and Global Regulation of Technology.

By Inzam P I The current decade is characterized by an ongoing cycle of wars, indiscriminate killing, genocide, and armed conflicts. This costs not only the lives of millions of people but also causes irrevocable damage to the environment and local populations. From the political crisis in Bangladesh to the Israel-Palestine conflict, the severity of harm inflicted upon the environment is undisputed. Consequently, the warmongering mentality of certain states around the world has led to a rapid surge in eco-violence this decade. Hence, it is a time of urgency for the international community to discuss the serious repercussions of mass environmental damage and adopt possible legal mechanisms to mitigate it. Arthur Galston, an American botanist, first coined the term 'ecocide' in 1970 to describe the environmental devastation that resulted from United States’ use of Agent Orange, a harsh herbicide, in Vietnam. ‘Ecocide’ literally means ‘killing the environment.’ Therefore, ecocide can be referred to as the deliberate or unintended destruction of the environment by human action. The demand for criminalisation of ecocide may sound highly radical, fresh and new. But it is quite opposite. The question on the legality of ecocide was addressed five decades ago. One of the first efforts to address it was proposed by former Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme at the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Human Environment. The momentum for the global movement to criminalize ecocide was maintained by Stop Ecocide International (SEI), which acted as a catalyst in mobilizing resisting voices together. It consistently urges for the inclusion of ecocide as the fifth crime in the Rome Statute , along with the “crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression”. According to the Stop Ecocide International , criminalization of ecocide would address and punish violators if they commit large-scale damage to the ecosystem through chemical disasters, deforestation, wide-ranging water and land contamination, and mass destruction of endangered species. Independent Expert Panel  of Stop Ecocide International in June 2021 defined ecocide as "unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts." The judgement of Dutch Supreme court in  State of the Netherlands v Urgenda  on 20th December, 2019, was a beacon of hope for future litigation on climate change. According to the ruling , the Netherlands is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to take proactive steps to avoid climate change and to cut its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020. Although there are noticeable positive trends in international law, like the Urgenda case ruling for the prevention of harm to the environment, its architecture still lacks sufficient strength to prevent countries and individuals from committing blatant violations of its provisions. While a few countries like France, Belgium, Georgia and Armenia have incorporated ecocide under criminal law, there is no international law with respect to the crime of ecocide in peacetime. This is where the necessity of including ecocide as a fifth crime in the Rome Statute comes in. Thus, it is germane to discuss that, as in war and armed conflict times, peacetime also witnesses the huge number of grave destructions of habitats. UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres  reiterated that “the world can no longer wait to take bold and resolute international climate action.” Undoubtedly, the need of the hour is to walk the talk, putting down the ego of developed and most powerful countries in the UN is a must for succeeding in the mission of legal recognition of ecocide as a serious international crime. Developed countries like the US must learn from, appreciate, and join the initiative taken by Pacific Island States like Vanuatu, Fiji, and Samoa in proposing the criminalization of severe harm to the environment. The official statement by the Government of Republic of Vanuatu  states that “Strengthening international peace and security is everyone's business, and particularly important to us Small Island Developing States. While our region is characterized by relative peace and stability, the fight against impunity is global.” It should be noted that legal recognition of ecocide should not be solely the responsibility of small countries more vulnerable to climate change. Rather, it demands coordinated efforts by all member parties to the ICC. Regarding the procedural aspect in the ICC, for adoption of ecocide as a fifth crime, at least a 2/3 majority of votes in favor of the proposal is essential at an assembly of parties. This requires discussions and consistent negotiation among attending parties. However, according to Washington Post , one of the potential challenges for the legal recognition of ecocide could come from some of the world's biggest pollution contributors, such as China, Russia, India, and the United States, which are not ICC member states. This non-member status gives them the freedom to challenge any of the court's rulings on jurisdictional grounds. The criminalization of ecocide as a fifth international crime may bring several positive changes. In addition, states will start incorporating ecocide law into their municipal criminal laws. Thereby, the amendment will push private corporate giants, and industrialists into a position to become more eco-sensitized. Additionally, policy elites in the government will be more conscious and careful in checking the possible damages of any project thoroughly before proceeding with such projects lightly. Most importantly, the new ecocide law and amendment to the Rome Statute should be framed without loopholes. Otherwise, certain parties could exploit these loopholes in the law to justify and enjoy impunity for law violations. It should not also neglect the multiplicity of actors involved in causing environmental damage, as most conflicts involve multiple players, including but not limited to states, non-state entities, MNCs, NGOs, individuals, etc. After all, only a massive global movement against ecocide could bring a significant change to the status quo, which requires persistent discussions, coordination, pressuring politicians, and demand for policy change from the grass root to the global level. #Ecocide #InternationalLaw #Romestatute #ICC This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog   Inzam P I is currently a second-year student pursuing a Master’s in Politics with Specialization in International Studies (M.A PISM) from the School of International Studies (SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University, JNU.

By Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai A simple, matter-of-fact statement issued on October o1, 2024  by the United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) Antonio Guterres caused an unprecedented diplomatic storm. “I condemn the broadening of the Middle East conflict, with escalation after escalation. This must stop.  We absolutely need a ceasefire”, the UNSG said. Similarly, the statement ( October 01, 2024 ) issued by the spokesperson for the UNSG, Stéphane Dujarric, specifically on Lebanon, reflected a similar concern. “ The Secretary-General is extremely concerned with the escalation of the conflict in Lebanon. He appeals for an immediate ceasefire.  An all-out war must be avoided in Lebanon at all costs and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon must be respected”, Dujarric said.     Declaring the UNSG persona non grata Though the UNSG’s statement did not mention any country per se , use of the jargon “ escalation after escalation” and “ broadening of the Middle East conflict”  touched a raw nerve, caused alarm in Israel and drew swift reaction from its combative foreign minister, Israel Katz. Katz crossed the limits of his office to declare the UNSG a persona non grata . The term is used to expel a diplomat whenever his/her presence in the country of posting becomes “undesirable”.  It is not meant for someone who is already outside the territorial jurisdiction. To equate the SG of the UN, of which Israel has been ‘difficult’ member from the beginning, with such cases of diplomatic misdemeanors is beyond all canons of Law of International Organization as well as time-tested corpus of diplomatic immunities and privileges ( 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations ). More importantly, the persona non grata  missile thrown by the Israeli minister at the UNSG does not apply to international organizations per se . The UN and its staff are governed by a special 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations . Referred to as the “General Convention”, it was negotiated and adopted immediately after establishment of the UN. As provided for in Article 105 of the UN Charter, the Convention was adopted by the UNGA at its first session on February 13, 1946 (resolution 22 A (I)) and entered into force on September 17, 1946. The General Convention specifies the notion of “functional” personality and immunity of the UN. It contains detailed provisions on the privileges and immunities enjoyed by UN officials. The over-the-board Israeli reaction was unwarranted. It is a classic example of ‘shooting the messenger’ who is discharging his UN Charter mandate and troubled by the habitual and willful defiance of International Law in the Middle East imbroglio by the state actors (Israel, Iran etc.) as well as non-state actors (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi etc.). The UNSG has sought to act within the remit of his office. The tone, tenor and phraseology of the Israeli minister was not unexpected in the aftermath of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s defiant address to the UNGA on September 27 . In diplomatic parlance, any such statement prohibiting entry of the UNSG is tantamount to coercive action against the Chief Administrative Officer (Article 97) of the 193-member political organization of sovereign states. The outburst of the Israeli foreign minister is not new in the UN history. Several member countries, some overtly and others covertly, have sought to make disparaging remarks against incumbent UNSGs from time to time or threatened or dissuaded them from visiting specific territories (including disputes ones). Most of such leaders vent their personal frustration on the UNSG. If the UNSG is strong enough (like Antonio Guterres), actively seeks to carry out the Charter mandate in letter and spirit (like Dag Hammarskjöld ) or even tries to make the UN stronger with radical ideas and proposals (like Butros Butros-Ghali), they are not sparred. It seems the rule is: stronger the Secretary-General, greater the attack and the outburst! Similarly, for proposing An Agenda for Peace (1992) , Butros-Ghali, a Professor of International Law, was not forgiven by the powerful actors. As a result, Butros-Ghali remains the only UNSG, who was not given the second term. Though very mild-mannered, even Kofi Annan was not sparred. Yet the shoulders of the UNSG must be broad enough to receive all the brick backs and the sheer weight of the office of the UNSG is beyond slights or insults (as in Mahabharata , as the Peace Envoy, Lord Krishna tells renegade Kaurava Prince Duryodhana). All the UNSG’s who took their task seriously had to face this professional hazard from ill-tempered heads of government or their representatives. The UN history is replete with stories of such mercurial people. To control the damage, in the wake of a discussion on situation in the Middle East on October 3, 2024 , however, the 15-member UNSC, promptly issued a joint statement that indirectly chided Israel . E xpressing its full support for the UNSG, the Council said, “any decision not to engage with the U.N. Secretary-General or the United Nations is counterproductive, especially in the context of escalating tensions in the Middle East.”   Thus, all UN member countries need to exercise restraint and sobriety in consonance with highest standards of diplomatic etiquettes so as not to shoot the messenger but to pay heed to the UNSG’s words of wisdom, concern, sobriety and empathy.          UNSG as a Conscience Keeper   The founders of the UN Charter envisaged role of the ‘secretariat’ ( Chapter XV; Articles 97-101 ), a fulcrum around which the entire edifice of the organization would revolve. During his seven years (since January 2017) as the head of the UN Secretariat, Guterres has been a trail blazer and sought to the walk-the-talk as the principal liaison officer for all the main organs of the UN. Invoking a series of instrumentalities of annual reports, special reports, periodic updates, briefings, statements and as the most visible face of the UN, the SG (along with his team) does the fire-fighting all the time on literally any issue ‘under the sun’. It is the briefings and reports on the ground situation provided by the UNSG that enable the UNSC to provide authorizations (drawing mandates from Chapter VI and VII of the Charter) for the UN Peacekeeping Missions ( Author: SIS Blog , September 18, 2024 ) as well as perform onerous task in making available crucial humanitarian assistance ( Author: SIS Blog , August 23, 2022 ) wherever possible in situations of conflicts, misery, mass violence, hunger, droughts, disasters, displacements etc.). The regular updates provided by the UNSG personally to the UNSC have become a stuff of legends. When Antonio Guterres walks into the hallowed chamber of the UNSC (or for that matter the UNGA), his whole lifetime experience as a stateman, including as Prime Minister of Portugal, walks with him. The crisp statements, laden with facts, figures and marshalling of data as well as authentic updates from the ground speak for themselves. We have not seen in recent decades a UNSG speaking with such authenticity, sincerity, candor, power of language, facial expressions and sheer force of personality. No wonder the Nobel Peace Prize has eluded him – so far.  Invocation of the Charter Tool (Article 99) Guterres has shown especially during his second term (2022-2026) that where is a will there is a way. As required, the UNSG has drawn power and competence scattered throughout the Charter. The UNSG can invoke ‘implied powers’  ( Rahmatullah Khan, Implied Powers of the United Nations : Vikas, 1970 ), hidden in the Charter. However, Guterres took an unprecedented step by invoking power expressly contained in Article 99 by sending December 6, 2023 letter to the President of the UNSC . This audacious letter invoked Article 99 (Chapter XV) , rarely used Charter provision. Under this extraordinary power, the UNSG can “bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security”. The 2023 initiative of the UNSG was propelled by the “appalling human suffering, physical destruction and collective trauma across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” The invocation of Article 99 has been regarded as the “most powerful tool”  in the arsenal of the UNSG. Since taking office in 2017, it was the first time Antonio Guterres had felt compelled to invoke Article 99. "In my opinion, the most powerful tool that he [the Secretary-General] has, " the UN spokesperson Dujarric told reporters at the UN Headquarters. The nuanced tone and tenor of the graphic letter appeared to sensitize the numbed senses of the 15 members of the UNSC including the veto-wielding five Permanent Members (China, France, Russian Federation, the UK and the USA). As the UN’s custodian for maintenance of international peace and security, the Council was expected to swing into action without any fear or favor to halt the brutality of warfare that has, over one year, resulted in colossal loss of civilian life (largely women and children), destruction and displacement of millions of people. Making the warring parties to adhere to the sanctity of International Humanitarian Law has been the biggest challenge for the UN since its principal ‘enforcement’ organ – UNSC – has remained paralyzed.     Notwithstanding the UNSG’s urgent appeal for consideration of the alarming situation in the OPT, the draft resolution was vetoed by the USA [13 in favor to 1 against (USA) and 1 abstention (UK)]. Not dejected by the outcome, the SG emphatically declared that he will continue with the efforts to avert a humanitarian catastrophe . “Regrettably  the Security Council failed to do it but that does not make it less necessary. So, I can promise I will not give up ”, the UNSG told assembled delegates on December 10, 2023 to the Doha Forum  to discuss “Building Shared Futures” comprising collective security and other challenges. Reports of the Secretary-General The Preparatory Commission for negotiating the 1945 UN Charter had sought to endow the Secretary-General with “a quite special right which goes beyond any power previously accorded to the head of an international organization.” As a result, the Charter underscores the inherent strength and express constitutional position of the UNSG as preeminent international political organization of the sovereign states. Thus, the proverbial ‘reports’ of the Secretary-General are eagerly awaited including on the ‘work of the organization’. The UNSG also provides reports to the other three principal organs: General Assembly (GA), Security Council (SC) and Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). For instance, the 2024 report of the UNSG  entitled “resolve”, literally and figuratively declares what the UN stands for and the entire secretariat staff (35, 000 plus), led by the UNSG, strives to achieve in furtherance of the UN’s objectives . The SG’s words in 2024 report duly underscore the UN’s raison d'être  as: “A t every step, our Organization and our personnel will continue to stand in solidarity with the people of the world through these trying times, as we seek to forge a more peaceful, healthy, equal and prosperous future together”.   Entire UN organization wide effort comprises contributions of over 100 bodies and organizations, including some 30 agencies, funds, commissions and programs. It is no less miracle that in a world where one-fourth population (two billion) lives in conflict zones, the UN is able to provide material assistance to hundreds of millions of people with over $60 billion (2023) . The expenses incurred by the UN comprise, at the top of the ladder, peace and security (203; in million US dollars). It is followed by other areas: climate action (178), food security (152), women (92), children (133), human rights (56), water and sanitation (36) and livelihoods (9).   The other tools used by the UNSG in his arsenal include conveying the view of the organization for maintenance of international peace and security, upholding adherence to International Law and well being of the humankind. It also comprises ‘statements’ issued by the SG or (on his/her behalf) by the spokesperson. The quantum of these finely crafted, nuanced and to the point statements is staggering. During January 3 to October 4, 2024  alone, the UNSG’s statements reached the figure of 298 . They are mostly issued from New York (apart from others issued from places of visits of the UNSG). The statements address a wide range of issues within the remit of the UNSG’s mandate under the Charter and focus on contemporary issues of global concern. As a corollary, t he UNSG provides a real time picture of the UN @work  in our much-troubled world. The arduous nature of the task of the UN and its chief officer need to be measured in the context of the principal challenge faced by the organization: maintenance of international peace and security. Making the United Nations Work In his 2021 Vision: Restoring Trust and Inspiring Hope   (as a candidate) for the second term (2022-2026), Antonio Guterres, without mincing words, stated: “The Charter perseveres even in the face of profound transformation. Its purposes, principles and provisions epitomize all that we stand for and guide all that we do”. As Guterres inches closer to his second (and final) term of office of the SG as well as the world organization attaining historic milestone of 80 years (1945-2025), everyone including the UN-baiters must be convinced that we have only one UN for our only one planet Earth. Having failed within 20 years (1919-1939), when Second World War broke out, the League of Nations  (emanating from the great peacemaking at the 1919 Treaty of Versailles ), did provide “vital lessons to reaffirm the resolve to work for realization of the idealism to eliminate war as an appalling evil.” ( Author: “On the Century of Peacemaking at the 1919 Treaty of Versailles: Looking Back to Look Ahead,” International Studies  57(3) 2020 (201–222) at 216 ). Thus, the advent of the UN became a necessity, upon the ashes of the League of Nations, to eliminate war as a ‘scourge’ ( Preamble to the UN Charter : ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”). Hence, notwithstanding  all the UN-bashing and personal targeting of the UNSG, the SG as a diplomat par excellence  does keep reminding all the UN members that there is no substitute for this organization. Pending revitalization of the UN to face “ 21st century challenges” ( UNSG, Summit of the Future , New York; September 22, 2024 ), we need to cherish and value the stellar role played by the Secretary-General (including use of negotiations, good offices and mediation), in espousing and symbolizing “United Nations ideals and a spokesperson for the interests of the world's peoples.” Since January 01, 2017, as the 9th occupant of the post of the UNSG  [previous UNSG were: Ban Ki-moon, Republic of Korea (2007-2016); Kofi Annan, Ghana (1997-2006); Boutros Boutros Ghali, Egypt (1992-1996); Javier Pèrez de Cuèllar, Peru (1982-1991); Kurt Waldheim, Austria (1972-1981);   U Thant, Burma (1961-1971); Dag Hammarskjöld, Sweden (1953-61); Trygve Lie (Norway (1946-1952) ], Antonio Guterres has left an indelible imprint on the organization wherein he has played the role of an elder stateman, a whistle-blower, a guide, a trouble-shooter and a messenger of peace. When Antonio Guterres speaks, as expected of the ace international civil servant, his words ring loud and clear. Even his October 2, 2024 UNSC address   “on the situation in the Middle East” to the UNSC, gave a wakeup call to the Council: “We must never lose sight of the tremendous toll that this growing conflict is taking on civilians. We cannot look away from systematic violations of international humanitarian law. This deadly cycle of tit-for-tat violence must stop. Time is running out”. Nothing more could be adhering to the role envisaged for the SG in the UN Charter. Conclusion The UNSG as a messenger and genuine well-wisher, can only convey non-partisan concern for the escalating ground situation in different parts of our troubled world. Irrespective of the area of concern and instead of trying to shoot the messenger par excellence , it would be in the interests of the “peoples of the United Nations” (Preamble) in whose name the UN Charter  was solemnly adopted ( San Francisco Conference; April 25-June 26, 1945 ; Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, San Francisco , Volumes I to XX, 1945-1954 ), it would be in the fitness of things if the UNSC and the member states pay heed to the calls for sanity and wisdom. “The people of the world are looking to us – and succeeding generations will look back on us. Let them find us on the side of the United Nations Charter…on the side of our shared values and principles…and on the right side of history”, Antonio Guterres prophetically said at the 79th UNGA, Sept. 2024 . There is no alternative to peace. Since nothing is permanent in this impermanent world, rest will be decided by Time , as the final arbiter. This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai is (former) Chairperson and Professor of International Law at the Centre for International Legal Studies (SIS, JNU), who served as a member of the Official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008), coordinated the futuristic knowledge initiatives for the SIS Faculty Wall of Honor (2023-24) , the Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020)  and the Making SIS Visible (2008-2013)  as well as contributes as the Editor-in-Chief  of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam) .

By Sakshi Sanjay Ugale Despite commemorating climate milestones in 2023—61 years since Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," 51 years since the Stockholm Conference, and 31 years since the UNFCCC—the Global Stocktake report detailed a sobering fact: the world is not on track to achieve the targets established in the Paris Agreement. Numerous conventions have taken place and still, we have not achieved any significant growth as only hyperbole is given by leaders at global negotiations. “Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone” (WHO). However, it is important to understand that climate change is not a great equalizer and it does not affect all of us equally. In Global climate risk index (2021 ), The top 10 countries that have experienced the most severe impacts of climate change during 2000-2019, are mostly LDC and developing countries of the global south. This observation highlights the ‘Climate Justice Paradox’, which means those who are the least responsible for climate change are the most vulnerable to its effects. These circumstances raise some fundamental questions- If the world was not completely oblivious about the climate change since more than a half century then why have we achieved very little progress? And why is it so difficult to get countries work together on this issue? Various scholars have attempted to address these questions, including Roberts and Parks , who prioritize inequality as the primary factor driving non-cooperative behaviour between the Global North and Global South and seek to elucidate this through two central pathways, first the extreme poverty and relative powerlessness of the majority of the global south nations which hinders their ability to negotiate with the global north. This has entrenched differing worldviews and beliefs, leading to widespread mistrust and polarized expectations regarding how to tackle climate-related issues. Similarly, Joyeetha Gupta argues there exists a structural imbalance of knowledge between developing and developed countries which results in ultimate deadlock. Another scholar, Chukwumerije Okereke, criticizes the international environmental regime's notion of justice , which he believes aligns with neoliberal economic and political interests. Okereke argues that these neoliberal ideas of justice do not provide a solid foundation for achieving global sustainable development and environmental justice. He contends that they fall short of delivering "distributive justice". The Global Stocktake report highlights the critical importance of climate finance and the transfer of climate-related technology, particularly for the less developed and developing countries in the global South. This idea is not a recent one but dates back three decades. In 1992, the UNFCCC, in Article 4.5 , explicitly stated that Annex I parties should make every practical effort to promote, facilitate, and financially support, when appropriate, the transfer of environmentally sound technologies and knowledge to other Parties, especially those in developing countries. However, despite these longstanding principles, progress in this regard has been limited due to various geoeconomic and geopolitical factors that hinder cooperation. It is becoming increasingly urgent to explore more radical approaches to cooperation that go beyond the traditional neoliberal framework. The challenge in reaching a global agreement on climate change stems from the fact that while we are all collectively motivated to address it, our individual commitment often falls short, as noted by Frame and Matthews in 2017 . In this context, it's crucial to recognize that we all share this " spaceship earth " and are part of one global family, echoing the ancient wisdom of "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" which perceives the world as one interconnected family. Much like how we instinctively care for the most vulnerable members of our own family, we must extend our support and solidarity to vulnerable nations. It is not like we do not have the memories of global cooperation. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that when the world unites to confront a global crisis, remarkable achievements become possible through our interconnectedness for shared goals. This experience serves as a powerful reminder of the potential for global cooperation to overcome significant challenges. Likewise, we should cooperate on a global level in the most unconventional and radical way to fight against the climate change. Sakshi Ugale is pursuing her post graduation in Political Science and International Relations at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her research interests lie in climate justice, environmental policy and governance with focus on the Global South.

By Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai Introduction The Summit of the Future  ended on September 23, 2024  after two days of routine speeches by the Heads of State or Government as well as intensive and interactive four dialogues. The Summit adopted an ambitious outcome document – Pact of the Future – along with two annexes on Global Digital Compact  and Declaration on Future Generations . It was presented by the President of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and formally adopted as resolution 79/1  of September 22, 2024 of the 79th UNGA Session. Philémon Yang (former Prime Minister of Cameroon elected President of the 79th UNGA session on June 06, 2024 ), expressed hope that the ideas exchanged would inspire further initiatives at national, regional and the global levels. “As we close the  Summit of the Future , I urge all Member States to continue to push for decisive action and to create meaningful progress,” Yang said. The feisty UN Secretary-General (SG), Antonio Guterres justified convening of the 2024 Summit since “21st century challenges require 21st century solutions”. “We are here to bring multilateralism back from the brink. I called for this Summit to consider deep reforms to make global institutions more legitimate, fair and effective, based on the values of the UN Charter… our world is heading off the rails – and we need tough decisions to get back on track”. In his opening remarks, Guterres ( September 22, 2024 ) cautioned the assembled world leaders.    All Roads Led to UNHQ in New York On September 22-23, 2024 all roads led to the UN headquarters in New York for the Summit of the Future.  The leaders of 193-member organization assembled for annual 2024 confabulations that came to be known as the “Year of the Planetary Future” (Author: here , here ) to show a way out of the planetary level crisis amidst raging conflicts that have engulfed one-fourth of the humankind (2 billion people around the world). Therefore, as contended by the UNSG Guterres, the world requires “more accountability, justice and opportunity and a future of solutions, not endless conflict ”. It needs to get a top priority of the global leaders for addressing the “root causes of war” , as underscored by Cyril Ramphosa, President of South Africa, especially on the African continent. Similarly, the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also referred to the global conflicts (it has been a recurrent feature in most of his recent addresses at the global forums) in these words: “Success of humanity lies in our collective strength, not in the battlefield, and for global peace and development, reforms in global institutions are essential.” His reference clearly alluded to India’s aspirations to become a permanent member of the UNSC ( Author, SIS Blog , March 22, 2024 ) as well as other pending ideas for UN reforms such as repurpose of the UN Trusteeship Council [ Author, EPL , 52 (2022) 223-235 ]. Described as once-in-a-generation UN Summit, it provided a unique stage to address current and future global challenges as well as reform of the UN Charter (1945). “ I have one overriding message today: an appeal to Member States for a spirit of compromise. Show the world what we can do, when we work together,” UNSG Antonio Guterres said in his September 18 address  at the UNGA’s high-level week. He pleaded to the world leaders that “We can’t create a future fit for our grandchildren with systems built for our grandparents,” he said, stressing that the Summit “cannot fail”.  In the same vein, the US President Joe Biden, in his fourth and final address to the UNGA on September 24, 2024 , asked some tough questions that confront our troubled world: ““Will we stand behind the principles that unite us? Will we stand firm against aggression? Will we end the conflicts that are raging today?” Then, in a matter of fact way, Biden expressed some words of wisdom to the Assembly that “ The choices we make today will determine our future for decades to come.”   The Moment of Truth The current warnings concerning planetary level crisis and quest of conscientious thought leaders and decision-makers to find solutions to it, underscores proverbial dilemma of the humankind on living in harmony with nature  (GA resolution 75/220 of December 21, 2020). It vividly reminds us about the alarm bells rung in the decades of sixties and seventies through scholarly works such as Silent Spring  (Rachel Carson, 1962), The Limits to Growth  (Club of Rome, 1972), This Endangered Planet   (Richard Falk, 1972) and Only One Earth  (Barbara Ward & Rene Dubos, 1972). They in fact set the stage for the epochal first UN Conference on Human Environment  (Stockholm, 1972). This author recalls his early publication, as a doctoral scholar, sought to underscore the “human quest for development seriously threatens our fragile ecosystem” [Author (1986), “Destroying the Global Environment”, International Perspectives , Ottawa, Nov./Dec. 1986, 27-28]. The resultant global environmental regulatory process has come a long way. In fact, full 50 years later, two curated scholarly works of this author in 2022 ( Envisioning Our Environmental Future ) and 2021 ( Our Earth Matters ) reflected the spirit of those early works by reminding the decision-makers as regards rapidly “depleting time"  (Nick Robinson, EPL  51 (2021) 361-369] for a decisive course correction. The timing of the UN Summit was considered as humankind’s “moment of truth” ( Author, SIS Blog , June 30, 2024 ) wherein global challenges are moving faster than the ability to resolve them. The summit took place in the aftermath of the two mega conferences of 2022 on the Stockholm+50   and UNEP@50 . In his June 02, 2022  address at Stockholm+50, the UNSG Antonio Guterres had warned that our consumption is “at the rate of 1.7 planets a year” and the “ global well-being is in jeopardy”. The gathering storms indicate the planetary-level human-induced crisis at work. Since coming events cast their shadows before, humankind seems to have sleepwalked into an existential “triple planetary crisis” ( Author, Green Diplomacy , November 08, 2023 ). The advent of the UN has stood the test of time for 79 long years unlike the League of Nations that existed for 20 years. Notwithstanding its limits, as a member-driven international organization in a State-centric global order, the UN matters most for humanity’s survival on planet Earth. The UNGA has been the main anchor for concerted international environmental law-making [ Author, EPL  50 (6) 2020, 489-508 ]  and institution-building processes [ Author (2014), International Environmental Governance , Boston: Brill Nijhoff, Chapters 2-4 ) comprising the normative approach at work. Pursuing the global conferencing technique, the UNGA took  crucial decisions across a wide canvass that included convening of some major global conferences (1972, 1992, 2002, 2012 and 2022). The AR6 Synthesis Report  (Interlaken; March 13-19, 2023) of the IPCC,  set up by the UNGA in 1988, has now unequivocally confirmed widespread and rapid “human-caused climate change” occurred in the “atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere…in every region across the globe”. 2024: New York Summit The Summit of the Future outcome document ( September 23, 2024 ) - Pact for the Future  – is a negotiated text (56 actions points arranged in 84 paragraphs) agreed upon through intergovernmental negotiations. It comprises two annexes containing two other instruments: Global Digital Compact and Declaration on Future Generations. The Pact pledges for a new beginning in multilateralism. It aims to ensure that the UN and other key multilateral institutions can deliver a better future for people and planet. It could enable states to fulfil existing commitments amidst new and emerging challenges and opportunities. The renewed thrust would be on “equally important, interlinked and mutually reinforcing” across three pillars of the United Nations – sustainable development, peace and security, and human rights. It has also been emphasized that “every commitment in this Pact is fully consistent and aligned with international law, including human rights law”. In the opening session of the first day (September 22), the tone of the Summit was set by Philemon Yang, President of the UNGA and the UNSG António Guterres. While the Plenary Meeting took place in the General Assembly Hall, the interactive dialogues were held in the Trusteeship Council Chamber. There is a scholarly idea from the Global South, mooted by this author in an invited talk of January 15, 1999 at Legal Department of the World Bank, (Washington DC), to ‘repurpose’ the same UN Trusteeship Coun cil [ Author, EPL, 52 (2022) 223-235 ] with a new mandate for global environment and global commons. The Summit comprised four intensive interactive dialogues: (i) Transforming global governance and turbocharging the implementation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development Co-Chaired by K P Sharma Oli, Prime Minister of Nepal; (ii) Enhancing multilateralism for international peace and security, Co-Chaired by Julius Maada Bio, President of Sierra Leone; (iii) Towards a Common Digital Future: strengthening inclusive innovation and cooperation to bridge the digital divides Co-Chaired by Alar Karis, President of Estonia and Mohamed Muizzu, President of Maldives); (iv) The Future Starts Now: enhancing the global system for current and future generations, Co-Chaired by Andrew Holness, Prime Minister of Jamaica and Evelyn Wever-Croes, Prime Minister of  the Netherlands. The Pact for the Future The finally adopted the Pact for the Future  (as the UNGA resolution 79/1  of September 22, 2024) contains five pillars  of sustainable development and financing for development, international peace and security, science, technology and innovation and digital cooperation, youth and future generations and transforming global governance. The two year-long preparatory process for the Summit brought about the realization that future of our international order is at stake and it cannot stand still. It promised to “promote cooperation and understanding between Member States, defuse tensions, seek the pacific settlement of disputes and resolve conflicts”. For the first time, it laid down a roadmap for reform of the UNSC to make it “more representative, inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic and accountable”. In essence, the pact considers the rationale given by India for enlargement of the UNSC based of various criteria, categories of membership as well as widely felt need for taming of the use of veto. In fact, it suggests for intensifying efforts “to reach an agreement on the future of the veto, including discussions on limiting its scope and use”. The G4 group (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) countries have been consistently making a case for urgent UNSC reforms (see, Author, SIS Blog , March 22, 2024 ). Indicative of the things to come, the Pact underscores the centrality of the General Assembly as the plenary organ of the UN the “chief deliberative, policymaking and representative organ”. Therefore, it has called for further enhancing and making full use of the role and authority of the UNGA to address evolving global challenges. In view of the consistent stalemates in the UNSC and its ineffectiveness to stop most of the global conflicts, the UNGA ends up playing role on maintenance of international peace and security. The Assembly draws its manmade from Article 11 of UN Charter  that empowers it to “ discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security” as well as “ call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security”. From the perspective of Law of International Organization, the UN Charter contains beautiful balancing between the two principal UN organs (UNGA and UNSC). Notwithstanding the UNSC’s inherent inequality due to ‘veto’ possessed by the P5 countries, the Assembly was expected to fill up the gap whenever the UNSC is deadlocked due to exercise of veto by one of the P5 countries. Since the UN's inception vetoes have been used 321 times (1945-2024). As a result, the action seems to have shifted to some extent to the UNGA. For instance, the UNGA convened the 11th Emergency Special Session that took some vital decisions on conflicts in Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza. For instance, in the aftermath of the Russian veto to defend its ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine , the UNGA adopted an unprecedented resolution 76/262 on April 26, 2022  for a “standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”. It provides that “President of the General Assembly shall convene a formal meeting of the General Assembly within 10 working days of the casting of a veto by one or more permanent members of the Security Council, to hold a debate on the situation as to which the veto was cast.” This extraordinary step shows the future pathway to blunt the edges of use of veto by P5. Hopefully, it could render veto less attractive for the future expansion of the UNSC. That inevitably opens the doors for the third category of the UNSC’s permanent membership without veto . It now appears to be the pragmatic way out for G4 in general and India in particular to” secure a permanent seat” on the UNSC’s horse-shoe table. Significantly, the Pact contains consensual understanding on the need “for the selection and appointment process of the Secretary-General to be guided by the principles of merit, transparency and inclusiveness”. As regards the next selection and appointment processes for the UN Secretary-General, the Pact emphatically notes “regrettable fact that there has never been a woman Secretary-General, and we encourage Member States to consider nominating women as candidates”. Possibly, it indicates winds of change and things to come when successor to Antonio Guterres will be deliberated upon both by the UNGA and the UNSC. Two Annexes to the Pact The Pact for the Future  (adopted as the UNGA resolution 79/1  of September 22, 2024) contains two annexes on (i) Global Digital Compact  (Annex I; pages 37-52) and (ii) Declaration on Future Generations (Annex II; pages 52-56). The 74 paragraphs Digital Compact (25 pages) seeks to address the “power of emerging technologies is creating new possibilities but also new risks for humanity, some of which are not yet fully known. We recognize the need to identify and mitigate risks and to ensure human oversight of technology in ways that advance sustainable development and the full enjoyment of human rights”. Significantly, the Compact swears to build foundations for the future multilateral digital cooperation on the basis of “international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, international human rights law and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. It draws upon previous processes in the field such as report of the World Summit on the Information Society  ( UNGA Doc. A/60/687 of March 15, 2006 ), known as the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, and the Geneva Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action ( UNGA Doc. A/C.2/59/3 of October 27, 2004 ). The Digital Compact’s objectives (Article 7) have been laid down as follows: (1) Close all digital divides and accelerate progress across the Sustainable Development Goals; 2. Expand inclusion in and benefits from the digital economy for all; 3. Foster an inclusive, open, safe and secure digital space that respects, protects and promote human rights; 4. Advance responsible, equitable and interoperable data governance approaches; 5. Enhance international governance of artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. Since the Compact emphatically declares that it is “anchored in international law, including international human rights law”, the 13 principles (Article 8) comprised therein would provide a basis for the future global treaty for regulation of the digital technology. The Declaration on Future Generations  is encapsulated in just 4.5 pages (32 paragraphs). It is divided into Guiding Principles (10), Commitments (13) and Actions (9). Building upon the one of the cardinal precepts of International Law – fiduciary obligation – the Declaration  reiterates obligation of the present generation to “to leave a better future for generations to come” as well as “safeguards the needs and interests of future generations”. This derives its inspiration from the idea of ‘trusteeship” wherein something is held in sacred trust and safeguarded for handing it over. This idea came to be inserted in the 1945 UN Charter ( Chapter XII and XIII ) in the form of “Trust Territories” and safeguarding of their interests through the instrumentality of the UN Trusteeship Council ( UNTC ; Articles 86-91 ). Now there is concerted movement in the UN corridors and intergovernmental forums for “repurpose” the UNTC ( here , here , here ) “to serve as a deliberative forum to act on behalf of succeeding generations”. In a similar way, the entire planet Earth regarded as a ‘trust’ (Planetary Trust). Hence the present generation ought to protect and pass on the resources and the Planet in form that would provide adequate “foundation for the prosperity of future generations” (paragraph 4). However, except pious homilies, the Declaration does not carry any concrete normative resolve or institutional transformation. It merely notes the proposal of the UNSG to appoint a Special Envoy for Future Generations  to support the implementation of the Declaration. Thus, it is still work-in-progress.    Conclusion There were high expectations that the Summit “cannot fail.”  The outcome document – Pact of the Future  – along with two annexes shows resilience and working of multilateralism at its best. However, the main challenge lies in walking-the-talk for all leaders of all the assembled 193 nations.  The UNSG has asserted  ( September 18, 2024 ) that “w e can’t create a future fit for our grandchildren with systems built for our grandparents.” In September 2020 virtual address to the 75th UNGA session as well as September 25, 2021 address at the 76th UNGA , the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi  had called for “comprehensive UN reforms.” “We cannot fight today’s challenges with outdated structures”, he said  ( Author, The Tribune , December 02, 2020 ). On September 23, 2024 , the Indian PM’s assertion that the “success of humanity lies in our collective strength, not in the battlefield” further cements the principles Indian position. As 59 plus global conflicts ( Uppsala Conflict Data Program , June 03, 2024 ) jeopardize future of at least 2 billion people, endanger peace and prosperity and derail multilateralism on institutionalized platform of the UN, it would require revisit, in conjunction with other components, processes and structures of the UN, of the Charter ‘blueprint’ for the prohibition of “threat or use for force” [ Article 2(4) and Article 51 ] to make it effective for the remaining three quarters of the 21st century. To operationalize the Pact of the Future  would necessitate sincere concerted follow-up action by the UNSG, the UN system as a whole and all the 193 member states. It presents a challenge for the global scholarly community to ideate on the Planetary Future  ( Author, SIS Blog , June 30, 2024 ). From his small perch in New Delhi (SIS/JNU), 12, 000 km away from the decision-making center in New York (UN), this author has audaciously sought to make a modest contribution to the global knowledge pool by bringing together cutting-edge ideas of some of the global thought leaders. As a corollary, the author has curated and published in Part – I [ EPL Special Issue 54 (2-3), 2024 ] contribution of ten eminent scholars prior to the 2024 Summit of the Future . The rest of the contributions will be published in Part – II  of the EPL Special Issue  54 (4-5) in November 2024. It is within remit of the conscientious scholars, irrespective of location, resources and hindrances (all kinds of mindsets, processes and systems), to think aloud and ahead for a better common future for our only abode – planet Earth.        Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai is (former) Chairperson and Professor of International Law at the Centre for International Legal Studies (SIS, JNU), who served as a member of the Official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008), coordinated the futuristic knowledge initiatives for the SIS Faculty Wall of Honor (2023-24) , the Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020)  and the Making SIS Visible (2008-2013)  as well as contributes as the Editor-in-Chief  of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam) .

By Debashreeta Behera For an extended period, Iran’s nuclear aspirations have been under intense international scrutiny and diplomatic negotiation. But as it inches closer to the nuclear threshold, there have been heightened global concerns about its implications for regional stability in the Middle East and international security. The recent confidential report  from the UN’s nuclear watchdog states that Iran has increased its uranium stockpile enriched to near weapon-grade levels not complying with international restrictions, a reality much closer now Iran’s supreme leader recently expressed his intentions  to renew negotiations with the United States concerning Iran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program. Ensuring its civilians that there is no harm in involving with Iran’s enemy, suggests a mocking undertone towards the United States' weakening efforts at limiting Iran’s nuclear program. Iran's civilian nuclear program began in the 1950s under the Eisenhower administration’s Atoms for Peace initiative, with U.S. support in setting up nuclear research reactors in Tehran. Iran committed to peaceful nuclear exploration, becoming one of the 51 nations to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), pledging not to pursue nuclear weapons. However, the late 1970s brought U.S. concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions following the establishment of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Relations further deteriorated after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which severed ties between Iran and the U.S., leading to the U.S.-backed Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988). During this period, Abdul Qadeer Khan, the architect of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, possibly sold uranium enrichment technology  to Iran. In 1995, Iran and Russia signed a contract to build light-water reactors at the Bushehr complex which was completed in 2010. Several intelligence reports about rising suspicion of Iran building a nuclear weapon prompted the U.S. to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities, including sanctions against foreign companies  investing in Iran under the guise of combating international terrorism. Iran, meanwhile, in 1999 under President Mohammad Khatami’s détente policy  advocated for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons , particularly concerned by Israel’s nuclear capabilities. In 2002, the discovery of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility led to global suspicion of Iran’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Under international pressure, Iran temporarily suspended its nuclear program and allowed stricter inspections, but resumed its activities despite warnings from the UN Security Council asserting its right to use nuclear technology to produce fuel  stating its motives as peaceful. The U.S. and Israel launched cyberattacks, including the infamous Stuxnet virus, delaying Iran's nuclear progress. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) imposed strict limits on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. However, after the U.S. withdrew from the deal in 2018 under the Trump administration, Iran resumed uranium enrichment. In response to growing isolation, Iran strengthened ties with Russia  and China  by virtue of their common shared interests and increased its support for militias across the region, escalating its covert conflict with Israel. Regional Security Implications Saudi Arabia opposes Iran's nuclear program as it sees it as a direct threat  to its security and influence in the Middle East. The JCPOA, which eased sanctions on Iran, was perceived by Saudi Arabia as empowering Iran economically and politically, increasing its regional dominance, while excluding Saudi and its allies from key negotiations. Additionally, Saudi concerns over Iran’s growing asymmetric power, supported by its oil revenues, drive this opposition. The GCC countries have also been proactive in negating the growing power of Iran in the region by engaging with external powers such as the US and NATO and having normalized relations with Israel, a shared adversary of Iran. Similarly, Israel’s nuclear opacity policy threatens Iran's security and regional ambitions. Israel views a nuclear Iran as an existential threat as Iran has been historically hostile to Israel over its legitimacy and criticizing its policies towards Palestine further deepening the rivalry over nuclear power. Iran's nuclear ambitions may bolster its confidence in supporting regional proxy groups, including Hezbollah, the Assad regime, Shiite militias in Iraq, and the Houthis, thus extending its strategic influence and further destabilizing the Middle East. This expanded backing not only threatens the interests of regional adversaries like Saudi Arabia and Israel but also deepens sectarian divisions and heightens geopolitical tensions across the region. Global Security and Non-Proliferation The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action represented a significant diplomatic achievement aiming to restrict Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for relief from crippling sanctions and ensuring Iran’s compliance with international inspections. The US withdrawal from the deal in 2018 led to the agreement’s partial disintegration prompting Iran to exceed the limits mentioned in the JCPOA. Efforts are being carried out to revive the deal amidst the rising challenges of growing Iran’s powers and shifting regional geopolitics. Despite being a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities has drawn a vague line between the civilian and military use of nuclear technology. This could encourage other Middle Eastern states like Saudi Arabia or Turkey to follow suit, leading to a regional arms race and weakening global non-proliferation efforts. This can also likely lead to a shift in international power balances, especially in the Middle East. With Iran as a potential nuclear state, five of the nuclear countries in Asia (North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, and Iran(potential power)will be connected by land route forming a chain structure (except for Israel which is not connected through land route nevertheless apparently is a part of this chained structure), further elevating the probability of a nuclear war in the Asian continent in the future with the already omnipresent dilemmas and risks regarding nuclear weapon deployment associated with India-Pakistan , East Asia , and South East Asian  rising tensions. There remains a significant risk that there could be nuclear proliferation to non-state actors like Hezbollah as Iran has a long history of supporting non-state actors. A nuclear-armed Iran could potentially be influenced by leadership driven by ideological or unconventional motivations, raising concerns about their ability to fully consider the consequences of using nuclear weapons. They may also lack sophisticated security measures and command and control procedures, making their arsenals more vulnerable to theft or unauthorized access.  Some scholars fear new nuclear powers might threaten nuclear use for blackmailing other nations or at best may lead to cascading nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz  has become one of the most vulnerable maritime and trade chokepoints, the blockade by Iran could lead to a full-blown war between Iran and the United States over gulf security and oil trade. This has been interpreted to usher over a global stock market crash. Theoretical Dimensions The challenges surrounding this issue are numerous and scholars have made significant efforts to address and mitigate them. According to Kenneth Waltz , Powers beg to be balanced. Israel is the only nuclear-armed power in the Middle East region and this nuclear monopoly has created instability in the region for decades now. In no other region of the world does a lone unchecked nuclear state exist. (Waltz, K. N. (2012). Therefore, it is only fair for Iran to stabilize the region by acquiring a nuclear deterrent. This would not only paradoxically balance the power in the region but also reduce Iran’s insecurity. Waltz saw nuclear deterrent as the ultimate security guarantee. He also believed that the slow spread of nuclear weapons could even be beneficial to deter conflicts and wars by citing the example of the escalation of mutual fear during the Cold War and the dampened scope of wars between India and Pakistan.   Conclusion Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities poses significant risks to regional stability and the global non-proliferation regime. While nuclear deterrence suggests potential stability through mutually assured destruction, the dangers of escalation and proliferation remain high. Taking the Israel-Iran covert war down a notch could also reveal to be stabilizing. Rafael Grossi, (Director General, IAEA) believes that uranium reserves don’t guarantee Iran will have a nuclear weapon within weeks as estimated.  A functional warhead requires many other things independently apart from uranium. He advocates for unfettered access and visibility of the nuclear sites for international inspections.  Additionally, fostering regional security dialogue to prevent an arms race is crucial. The international community should balance credible deterrence with economic incentives and security guarantee s  to steer Iran away from militarizing its nuclear program and ensure long-term stability. Debashreeta Behera is pursuing her post-graduation in Politics with a specialization in International Relations (PISM) at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi with a keen focus on research and academic writing on contemporary political issues and global affairs.

By Prof. Dr. Bharat H. Desai On September 9, 2024, the United Nations (UN) Security Council (SC), under Slovenia Presidency, held an open debate on the “peacekeeping operations” . The primary strength and support of these operations is drawn from the contributions of the UN member states.  “As geopolitical tensions have mounted, including here in this Council, and amid shifting global and regional dynamics, peacekeeping operations are increasingly unable to rely on Member States to act in a strong, unified manner to support peacekeeping efforts they are mandated to support,”  Jean-Pierre Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations  told the 15-member UNSC. UNSC Open Debate The concept note ( August 27, 2024 ) prepared and circulated in advance by the Slovenian Presidency emphasized that “the United Nations peace operations must continue to adapt to new realities and ensure their own effectiveness and ability to implement their mandated task, including the protection of civilians. This cannot be achieved without the full, equal and meaningful participation of women and a gender responsive approach at all stages of peacekeeping”.   Following were the guiding questions  for the UNSC open debate: (1)  What can the Security Council do to make United Nations peace operations more fit for purpose? (2)  How can the Security Council engage Member States, including host countries, neighbouring countries and troop- and police-contributing countries, more effectively and systematically rally behind United Nations peacekeeping and the political solutions that they are designed to support? What can the role of the regional organizations be in helping ensure a conducive political environment for peace operations? (3)  What concrete steps can be taken to foster greater political unity within the Security Council as the basis for consistent political support for peace operations? (4)  Recognizing the progress made thus far, how can the Security Council do more to define strategic objectives and to prioritize and sequence peacekeeping mission mandates? (5)  In devising peacekeeping mandates, how can we reach an optimal balance between upholding the Council’s prerogatives under the Charter while appropriately considering both the views of the host countries and the expectations of the civilian population? (6)  How can it become more people-centred and ensure that it continues to support inclusive peace and political processes, with the participation of women and youth? Instrumentality of Peacekeeping As of April 2024, some 77, 650 peacekeepers were stationed in conflict zones and seek to protect the civilian population as well as fight battles, among others, against armed groups, mercenaries, rogue elements, transnational organized gangs, illegal resource plunder (poaching, trafficking, smuggling), proliferation of weapons, disinformation campaigns. There are 11 UN peacekeeping operations that carry different nomenclatures, areas of operation, mandates and composition. They comprise: Western Sahara ( MINURSO ); Golan ( UNDOF) ; Abyie ( UNISFA ); India and Pakistan ( UNMOGIP ); Central African Republic ( MINUSCA ); Cyprus ( UNFICYP ); Kosovo ( UNMIK ); Middle East ( UNTSO ); DR of the Congo ( MONUSCO ); Lebanon ( UNIFIL ) and South Sudan ( UNMISS ). The UN peacekeepers are engaged in fire-fighting operations in various conflict zones that essentially require political solutions. The approved budget for UN Peacekeeping operations stood at US$6.38 billion for the fiscal year 2021 - 2022  ( A/C.5/75/25 ). UNMOGIP, as the UN’s oldest mission (1949) seems to have outlived its utility in view of fundamental change of circumstances. After the Shimla Agreement (1972) and the Lahore Declaration (1999), “all outstanding issues with Pakistan are discussed only bilaterally”. Moreover, after the last UNSC resolution 307 (1971), the Council has remained silent on the “India-Pakistan Question (IPQ)". It underscores that the subsequent developments have overtaken the legal dynamics of the original issue. Therefore, it seems high time to remove IPQ from the UNSC’s “seized items” ( Bharat Desai, SIS Blog Special , May 10, 2022 ) list and close the UNMOGIP after a passage of 75 years (1949-2024). The 2021-2022 budget represented an average of 2.1% decrease  on the approved budget (US $6.57 billion) for 2020-2021 . This finance covers 9 of the 11 UN peacekeeping missions. The remaining two are the oldest missions (UNTSO, 1948; UNMOGIP, 1949) and funded through the regular UN budget. By way of comparison, the expenses incurred on UN peacekeeping operations constitute less than one-half per cent (0.5%) of world military expenditures (estimated at $1, 981 billion in 2020). For the year 2020-2021, the top 10 contributing countries for the peacekeeping operations were as follows: United States (27.89%); China (15.21%); Japan (8.56%); Germany (6.09%); United Kingdom (5.79%); France (5.61%); Italy (3.30%); Russian Federation (3.04%); Canada (2.73%); Republic of Korea (2.26%). Out of total 77, 650 peacekeepers deployed in 11 missions, none of the permanent member (P5) of the UNSC has provided any troop (or police) contribution except very small number of experts provided by the Russian Federation (MINURSO and UNIFICYP) and China (UNTSO). Each of the peacekeeping mission has witnessed casualties that show the grave peril faced by them. So far 1374 peacekeepers have died on UN peacekeeping missions. “There is only so much that peacekeeping can do on its own,” Lacroix modestly underscored as he urged the UNSC and the UN Member States to provide unified backing for missions. The most of the UN peacekeepers (68, 950) are deployed in just four missions: MINUSCA (22, 523); MONUSCO (17, 761); UNMISS (18, 125) and UNIFIL (10, 541). The mandates of these four major operations are as follows: (1) Under MONUSCO , the peacekeepers  have been entrusted with protection of more than 100,000 displaced civilians at the Drodro camp in Ituri Province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; (2) The UNIFIL  personnel face daily threats in Southern Lebanon from cross-border violence but serve as the crucial communication channel preventing further escalation; (3) The UNMISS  works to advance political solutions in South Sudan by engaging local and national stakeholders, building confidence for long-term peace; and (4) The UNISFA  mediates peace agreements in Abyei Province in Sudan between herders and farmers competing over scarce natural resources, preventing conflict during cattle migration seasons by collaborating with local and international partners. The current Indian contribution to the UN peacekeeping comprises 4653 troops primarily in these four peacekeeping missions: UNMISS (2402); MONUSCO (1817+139); UNIFIL (895) and UNDOF (200). Traditionally, India has been one of the biggest providers of military and police personnel to UN missions, including the first all-women UN police contingent in 2007 posted to the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) . The mission successfully ended its mandate on March 30, 2018. Moreover, in 2023, India provided a contingent of 25 women soldiers  from the Corps of Military Police (CMP) and the Assam Rifles. Since the peacekeeping operations began in 1948, more than 200,000 Indian men and women had served in 49 peacekeeping missions. Most of the peacekeeping forces are run with the help of troops contributions provided by the Global South countries such as Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nepal and Pakistan.  Apart from the troops, the UN also deploys police personnel in mission  countries where normal law and order has broken down. The UN Police personnel complement and work in conjunction with the UN peacekeeping troops. From it first deployment in 1960, to its current presence in DR Congo, tens of thousands of police officers from over 130 countries have worked to protect populations, strengthen the rule of law, and build the foundations for effective and accountable policing that serve host-State populations. Policing is as much preventive as it is responsive, and it is central to efforts to avert, mitigate and resolve violent conflict. For this reason, the United Nations and its police components must prioritize conflict prevention in peace efforts, as well as in response to violence in support of the achievement of peace and security. With a current authorized strength of 10,000 serving on the frontlines in UN peace operations globally, they occupy a unique role among the world’s police forces. The UN policing serves and protects people where ‘blue helmets’ are stationed, beginning with Action for Peacekeeping, particularly in the areas prioritized within what the UN has designated as A4P+. The UN Police helps in adherence to rule of law and International Human Rights Law ( UNSG Report, December 31, 2018 ). Legal Basis for UN Peacekeeping The idea and the practice of peacekeeping is premised upon inter-related and mutually reinforcing three basic principles: (i) consent of the parties (ii) impartiality and (iii) non-use of force except in self-defense and in upholding the mandate. Each peacekeeping operation is designed differently since situations arising from conflicts and post-conflicts present different challenges. The UNSC could invoke its powers especially from the UN Charter ( Chapters VI, VII and VIII ). In general, while adopting a resolution authorizing a peace operation, the UNSC does not need to refer to any specific Chapter or provision. However, the UNSC does so whenever it undertakes to give effect to its ‘enforcement powers’ under Chapter VII.   The Charter provides for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes  under Chapter VI (Articles 33-38) . UN peace operations have traditionally been associated with this Chapter. However, the UNSC while giving a mandate for specific UN peacekeeping operation has not invoked Chapter VI. Chapter VII (Articles 39-51)  contains provisions related to “Action with Respect to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression’. It entails progressively tougher actions as warranted by situation on the ground. In order to trigger pea ce enforcement operations, the Council needs to make an explicit reference to   Chapter VII . In recent years, the Council has adopted the practice of invoking Chapter VII of the Charter while authorizing deployment of the UN peace operations especially in the aftermath of breakdown of rule of law, peace and order and exercise of normal state functions. In doing so, the Council first arrives at a determination  (Article 39) as regards the “ existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”  Thereafter, the Council invokes its inherent power for maintenance of international peace and security and emphatically states that it is “acting under Chapter VII”  (see UNSC Reso. 2738 (June 27, 2024 on the DRC). Then it further “decides” specific course of action for addressing the parties to the conflict. Since the UNSC’s powers under Chapter VII lead to legally binding consequences, the language also remains emphatic as the Council literally issues ‘orders’ as a reflection of the collective resolve of the 15-members including P5. As compared to Chapters VI and VII, in enabling action under Chapter VIII (Articles 52-54) , the Charter broadens the basis by involving regional arrangements and agencies in the maintenance of international peace and security. However, any such action must be in consonance with the purposes and principles outlined in Chapter I of the Charter. Now in its 77th year as an instrumentality for peace, “peacekeeping” per se  does not find an explicit mention in the UN Charter. Since 1948, there been 71 UN peacekeeping operations. As of April 2024, 11 missions were active. However, the primary leitmotif (leitmotiv in German) of the UN’s peacekeeping remains maintenance of international peace and security [ UN Charter, Article 1(1) ]. As the global military expenditure reached a new high of US$ 2.24 trillion (2022) , conflict related deaths reached 28 year high (2022) ,  conflicts have become a major factor for global displacement of people. Notwithstanding the UN Charter ‘blueprint’ [ Article 2 (4)  and Article 51 ] for prohibition of “threat or use of force”, some 2 billion people (one-fourth of global population of 8 billion) live in world’s conflict zones. It presents daunting challenges for the UN and its peacekeepers. Instead of managing conflicts as the UNSC mostly ends up doing, the primary focus needs to be on prevention of conflicts as well as timely resolution of the roots causes of such global conflicts. The security forces can try to contain harm caused by the warring groups. However, ultimate solution must be through political means.   Limits of Peacekeeping The role of the UN, primarily driven by the UNSC, do not necessarily result in solutions in all conflicts wherein the peacekeepers are stationed. There are limits to the peacekeeping operations in view of competing interests of the UNSC members. Therefore, the language of the legally binding resolutions could be unclear, ambiguous or open-ended as they emanate from political compromises of 15-member UNSC. As a result, mandates of many peacekeeping operations do not yield results even as the peacekeepers face risks on missions (1374 UN personnel have died in 11 ongoing missions). It leads to conflicts festering for years causing death and destruction as can be seen from peacekeeping operations in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, South Sudan and Lebanon. In this respect, the report of the Brahimi Panel on United Nations Peace Operations   (August 17, 2000) observed: “ There are many tasks which United Nations peacekeeping forces should not be asked to undertake and many places they should not go. But when the United Nations does send its forces to uphold the peace, they must be prepared to confront the lingering forces of war and violence, with the ability and determination to defeat them”. Therefore, any UN peacekeeping operation needs to be carefully designed considering situation on the ground, responsible factors (such as tug-of-war for control over natural resources) for the conflict, disruptive capacity of the rival armed groups, political will of the P5 and availability of required financial and manpower requirements for the operation. The crucial balancing calls for deciding on how to do peacekeeping and how not to do peacekeeping. The size and capacity of the peacekeeping contingent would need to be assessed on the basis of their capacity to deter the rebel groups. Notwithstanding this, as seen in some cases, the anguish of the local populations sometimes turns against the peacekeepers due to sheer survival issues (abject poverty) or frustration arising from years-long insecurity and instability. For instance, the UN experts, Zaida Catalán (Sweden) and Michael Sharp (USA) were on mission as mandated by the UNSC resolution 1533 DRC Sanctions Committee’s Group of Experts . They were abducted on March 12, 2017 during their investigation of mass atrocities in the troubled Kasai region in the aftermath of brutal clash between armed militia and the Congolese government forces. The search by the UN peacekeepers found their bodies after two weeks. Similarly, on August 04, 2022, t he Congolese authorities also expelled spokespersons of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the DRC ( MONUSCO ) following some deadly protests in the eastern part. The Board of Inquiry set up by the UNSG noted in its report of August 16, 2017 that the “Congolese interpreter and the three motorcycle drivers [accompanying Catalán and Sharp] were also killed, but their bodies have not been found to date.” Reporting took place under the UNSC resolutions that have given mandate to the Group of Experts  (starting from resolution 1533 March 12, 2004   to resolution 2738 of June 27, 2024 ) . These UNSC resolutions were adopted under ‘enforcement’ powers of Chapter VII of the UN Charter  after arriving at an explicit determination  that the “ situation in the DRC continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security in the region” ( resolution 2738 of June 27, 2024 ) . The UNSC took a comprehensive review of the situation in the DRC vide   resolution 2641  of June 30, 2022. This came in the wake of long line of the UNSC’s 33 extensive briefings and consultations (between July 10, 2017 to June 30, 2022). It speaks volumes about the laborious task involved, deep-rooted malaise, gravity of the situation in the DRC and UN’s own engagement in the quagmire of the DRC. Tragedy of Peacekeeping in the DR Congo With third largest contingent of the UN peacekeeping contingent of 17, 761 ( MONUSCO, February 2024 ), 110 million population, 11th largest country (geographical area) in the world and extremely rich natural resources, the DRC in the sub-Saharan Africa has remained one of the poorest and most unstable regions in the world. Variously known during different phases as the Belgian Congo, Congo-Kinshasha, the Congo,  Zaire and the DR Congo (different from the Republic of Congo-Brazzaville), the prosperity in resources seems to have become such a curse that its helpless people are condemned to remain at 175 out of 189 countries  listed in the ‘low’ Human Development Index.   The crux of the appalling condition in the DRC was graphically narrated in spine-chilling address of the Congolese gynaecologist Denis Mukewege in his 2018 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech  (December 10) at the Oslo City Hall. “ The human cost of this perverted, organized chaos has been hundreds of thousands of women raped, over 4 million people displaced within the country and the loss of 6 million human lives. Imagine, the equivalent of the entire population of Denmark decimated. United Nations peacekeepers and experts have not been spared, either. Several of them have been killed on duty”, Denis Mukewege said. Even after passage of six years (2024), the situation in DRC remains as explosive as narrated in Mukewege’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech. The UN has been badly entangled in the quagmire of the DR of Congo. It is worth recalling that it was the DRC conflict that led the feisty UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld, to personally go to check the ongoing negotiations of a cease-fire. His death in September 18, 1961 plane crash, on UN mission, still remains a mystery. The UNSC resolutions 2738 (2024) , 2688 (2023) , 2641 (2022) , 2612 (2021) , 2582 (2021)  and 2556 (2020)  have sought a general and immediate cessation of hostilities  and the UNSG’s March 21, 2022 report  amply showed no signs of resolving the complex tangle of the DRC, the questions arise about this ‘bottomless-barrel’ situation. It poses grave risks for the UN peacekeeping mission in the DRC that includes an Indian contingent. The UNSC resolution 2612 of December 20, 2021  explicitly asked the President Tshisekedi towards ensuring that the DRC Government protects and respects human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as combats impunity in all areas. The gravity of the situation can be gauged from the fact that on July 25-26, 2022, anti-UN protestors looted and damaged UN facilities across North Kivu province. They were angered by the UN’s inability to curb violence by armed groups. Three UN peacekeepers (two from India and one from Morocco) were also killed.   Road Ahead: Beyond Peacekeeping The quagmire of the vicious global conflicts have forced the UN’s engagements in various peacekeeping missions. It underscores the graphic reality that the dramatis personae  in respective regions have been driven by vested interests in perpetuating conflicts rather than resolving them. The UN peacekeeping can only help in managing the conflicts pending final resolution through settlement between the parties. Therefore, every operation calls for very careful calibration that finally yields a treaty for durable peace between the conflicting groups. It necessitates peace brokered by ace international lawyers and diplomats as the peacekeepers keep a hawk eye. Thus, the roadmap, after the UN peacekeepers leave, would require an application of the I nternational Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law and the innovative TJ mechanisms to usher into era of peace with justice for all the stakeholders. The Pact of the Future to be adopted at the UN Summit of the Future (September 22-23, 2024) acknowledges the need to "respect and protect humanitarian personnel and UN and associated personnel" in global arms conflict. However, it is a tall order and would need to be give effect to in relative international legal instruments. This presents an ideational challenge for International Law scholars, peace negotiators and the decision-makers.     #UN #PEACEKEEPING This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. It is 11th article by the author in the Blog Special Series: Use of Weapons of War .   1)    20 August 2024 : BLOG SPECIAL – X: The Geneva Conventions @75: Use of Weapons of War and Audacity for Humanizing Warfare ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com )      (2)   27 January 2024:  Blog Special – IX: The Odious Scourge of Genocide and the Use of Weapons of War: Making International Law Work ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) ;    3)    13 April 2023 :  Blog Special – VIII: The Conflict Diamonds and the Weapons of War: A Challenge for International Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 4)    11 March 2023 : Blog Special – VII: Rape under Orders as a Weapon of War: A Challenge for International Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 5)    22 September 2022 :  Blog Special –VI: Use of Weapons of War and Violence Against Children: A Challenge for International Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com )    6)    23 August 2022 : Blog Special   –V: Use of Weapons of War and the Role of Humanitarians: ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 7)    11 August 2022 :  Blog Special –IV: Use of Nuclear Weapons in War (Hiroshima-Nagasaki Day): A Challenge ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 8)    06 August 2022 :  Blog Special - III: Abused Ammunition as a Weapon of War in the DR Congo: A Challenge for International Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 9)    22 June 2022 :  Blog Special-II: Use of Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War: A Challenge for International  Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 10)    28 May 2022 :  Blog Special-I:   Use of Food as a Weapon of War: A Challenge for International Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com )   Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai is (former) Chairperson and Professor of International Law at the Centre for International Legal Studies (SIS, JNU), who served as a member of the Official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008), coordinated the futuristic knowledge initiatives for the SIS Faculty Wall of Honor (2023-24) , the Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020)  and the Making SIS Visible (2008-2013)  as well as contributes as the Editor-in-Chief  of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam) .

By Manoj Karki Introduction China’s remarkable rise as an Olympic superpower has captured the attention of the world. Over the past two decades, China’s journey from a relatively minor player in global sports to a dominant Olympic force reflects its broader aspirations for global influence. This transformation, achieved through deliberate policies and significant investments, offers valuable lessons for India, a nation with immense potential yet struggling to replicate similar success on the Olympic stage. For India, understanding and adapting some of these strategies could unlock new avenues for success in global sports competitions, particularly at the Olympics. By examining China’s rise to Olympic dominance, India can draw lessons on how to leverage its strengths and overcome the challenges that have hindered its progress in sports on the world stage. China’s Olympic Journey China’s journey in the Olympics began humbly, with sporadic participation and limited success in the early years. Before the turn of the millennium, China’s presence at the Olympics was modest. However, the 2008 Beijing Olympics marked a turning point. Not only did China top the medal tally for the first time, but it also showcased its ability to organize an event of such magnitude with flawless precision. This success was the culmination of years of meticulous planning, strategic investments in sports infrastructure, and a centralized approach to talent development. Since the 2008 Beijing Games, China has consistently performed among the top nations in subsequent Olympics. The Chinese government’s commitment to sports, viewing it as a means of enhancing national prestige and fostering unity, has been evident in the systematic and sustained support provided to athletes. This development strategy reflects China’s long-term vision for sports as a symbol of national strength and identity.   Key Strategies Behind China’s Success Centralized Sports System A cornerstone of China’s Olympic success is its highly centralized sports system. The government plays a pivotal role in identifying and nurturing young talent through a network of specialized sports schools. This begins at a young age, where potential athletes are scouted and trained intensively. The state provides significant resources, ensuring access to top-notch facilities, coaching, and a comprehensive support system that includes psychological and nutritional needs throughout an athlete’s career. Scholars like Zheng & Chen  (2016) and Hong & Zhouxiang (2012) emphasize how this approach has been crucial in sustaining China’s Olympic success. Similarly, Hong et al.  (2007) highlight how this centralized model nurtured Olympic talent. Investment in Sports Infrastructure China’s investment in sports infrastructure is unparalleled, with the nation consistently allocating significant financial resources to develop world-class facilities. This transformation can be traced back to the 2008 Beijing Olympics , which marked a pivotal turning point. For instance, China invested an estimated $40 billion in preparation for the event, covering not only the construction of sports facilities but also broader urban infrastructure improvements, such as new subway lines, highways, and airport expansions. The Bird’s Nest National Stadium, constructed at a cost of $423 million, and the Water Cube National Aquatics Centre, which required an investment of $140 million, exemplify the scale of these investments. Following the 2008 Olympics, China’s investment in sports infrastructure continued to grow. From 2010 to 2015, the country spent an estimated $6 billion upgrading sports facilities nationwide. This effort focused on expanding access to sports facilities across the country, particularly in rural areas. The shift from urban to rural investment strategies broadened China’s talent pool for future Olympic athletes, as discussed by Hu  (2024). For the 2022 Winter Olympics , China allocated $3.9 billion, focusing on winter sports facilities such as ski resorts, ice rinks, and training centres. This strategic investment aimed to diversify China’s sporting prowess beyond traditional summer sports and establish the country as a leading nation in winter sports.   International Collaboration Recognizing the importance of global expertise, China has strategically partnered with foreign coaches and trainers to enhance its athletes’ skills. By blending traditional training techniques with international practices, such as recruiting foreign coaches and integrating sports science, China has exposed its athletes to various competitive environments. Partnerships with nations like the U.S., Russia, and Germany provided Chinese athletes with different training methodologies, contributing significantly to their resilience and performance on the global stage. This influence of foreign expertise is well-documented by Chen & Chen  (2021) illustrating how Chinese athletes gained a competitive edge through these collaborations. Long-term Vision and Planning China’s approach to the Olympics is characterized by a long-term vision and meticulous planning, guided by a series of strategic government documents and policies. For instance, the Outline for Building a Leading Sports Nation  (2019) sets the ambitious goal of establishing China as a global sports leader by 2035. This strategy builds on earlier initiatives, such as the National Fitness Program , first introduced in 1995 and regularly updated to encourage mass participation in sports. Additionally, China’s Outline for the Strategic Development of Sports in China  provided a decade-long framework to enhance sports infrastructure and competitive performance, particularly leading up to and following the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Scholars such as Zheng et al.  (2018) and Tan & Green (2008) have analyzed how these initiatives evolved from basic infrastructure and public health to international competitiveness and sports diplomacy. Challenges and Criticisms While China’s Olympic success is commendable, it has not been without criticism. The country’s intense focus on sports excellence, particularly the practice of starting rigorous training at a young age, has raised concerns about the physical and mental well-being of athletes. Social and ethical issues, such as the pressures on young athletes and early specialization, remain points of contention. These issues are highlighted by Cao & Zhiwei (2008), who discuss how the emphasis on winning medals can sometimes overshadow broader efforts to promote mass participation in sports among the general population.     Lessons for India India’s sporting culture has deep roots, dating back thousands of years. Traditional sports like wrestling ( Kushti ) and archery have been integral to Indian society since ancient times, with wrestling holding a prominent place in Indian culture. The ancient practice of Malla-Yuddha  (traditional Indian wrestling) has survived through centuries and remains popular today, with mentions in historical texts such as the Mahabharata  and the Ramayan . During the colonial period, British-introduced sports like cricket, hockey, and football gained popularity. Cricket, in particular, grew to become India’s most followed sport. However, India’s Olympic successes have primarily come in individual sports, such as wrestling, shooting, and badminton. The rise of initiatives like Khelo India , launched in 2018, is starting to shift the focus toward broader participation in sports and the development of Olympic-level athletes. India can chart a path to greater success on the global stage by learning from China’s example. Focusing on centralized sports development, increasing investment in sports infrastructure, nurturing talent from the grassroots level, integrating sports science, and balancing elite sports with mass participation are key strategies that India can adopt. Centralized Sports Development A cornerstone of China’s Olympic success is its highly centralized sports system, where the government plays a crucial role in scouting, training, and developing athletes. India, with its federal structure, faces unique challenges in implementing a similar model, but adopting a more coordinated national approach could yield significant benefits. Currently, India’s sports development is largely state-driven, leading to disparities in resources and outcomes between states. For example, Haryana ,   which comprises 2.09% of India’s population according to the 2011 census , contributed 66.66% of the medals India won at the Paris 2024 Olympics ,  showcasing how focused state-level policies  can lead to impressive achievements. Expanding the reach and resources of national initiatives like the Sports Authority of India   (SAI) could further enhance India’s sports performance, as demonstrated in the success of India’s athletes  at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics . Increased Investment in Sports Infrastructure India’s investment in sports infrastructure remains modest, especially compared to countries like China. In the 2024-25 budget , India allocated around ₹3,442.32 crore towards sports initiatives, a notable increase from previous years, largely driven by the Khelo India  program. However, this spending represents only about 0.1% of India’s GDP, a stark contrast to China’s substantial  investments in sports. Programs like Khelo India  aim to enhance sports infrastructure across the country, focusing on creating state-of-the-art facilities and promoting grassroots sports. However, disparities persist between Indian states, with regions like Haryana and Punjab  receiving better funding and infrastructure for sports such as wrestling and hockey. Expanding these programs and ensuring equitable distribution of resources will be crucial for India to compete more effectively on the global stage. Talent Identification and Nurturing India must prioritize grassroots programs that identify and nurture talent from a young age. The Khelo India  initiative is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to scale up these programs and ensure they reach even the most remote parts of the country. By providing young athletes with resources and support early on, India can build a stronger foundation for future Olympic success. Focus on Sports Science and Coaching India can learn from China’s emphasis on scientific training methods and international coaching expertise. By blending traditional practices with modern sports science, Indian athletes can enhance their global performance. Incorporating international coaching expertise and investing in research and development in sports sciences could lead to significant improvements in athlete performance, as seen in China’s Olympic success. Balancing Elite and Mass Sports While India must focus on elite sports to achieve Olympic success, it should not lose sight of promoting mass participation in sports. Encouraging a culture of sports at all levels of society will not only broaden the talent pool but also contribute to a healthier and more active nation. This dual approach will ensure that the benefits of sports are widely felt beyond the elite athletes. Conclusion As of the latest Olympics held in Paris , China’s medal tally stands at 91 (Gold: 40, Silver: 27, Bronze: 24), while India has secured 6 medals (Gold: 0, Silver: 1, Bronze: 5). China’s ascent to Olympic superpower status is a testament to the country’s strategic planning, investment in infrastructure, and commitment to sports development. India’s journey to Olympic success will require strategic reforms and a national commitment to sports development. By building on existing initiatives like Khelo India and learning from China’s strategic investments, India can unlock its athletic potential and take its place among the global sports superpowers. Sports can serve as a powerful tool for national development, uniting people and instilling a sense of pride and achievement. This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Manoj Karki is pursuing his post-graduation in Politics (specialization in International Relations) at the School of International Studies (SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, India.

By Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit The reports and revelations coming from Kerala about sexual abuse, harassment, exploitation in the Malayalam film industry are reminders of the underbelly of glamour and politics. Men and boys, we show our manhood through the way we treat our women. Our colleagues, our wives, our sisters, our mothers.Archbishop Desmond Tutu Women’s safety and its issues are discussed and debated all around the globe. Still, every year the number of reports on sexual harassment is increasing at an alarming rate. We continue to say that we are living in modern times where women finally have the agency to break the glass ceiling more easily and achieve their goals. However, the ground reality is a far cry from sunshine and rainbows. Women’s workforce participation rate remains low, and they continue to face safety issues. There are enough news reports to show the gruesome situation women face at workplaces, and these are a clear example of lack of safety. The series of reports and revelations coming from Kerala about sexual abuse, harassment, misuse of power and exploitation allegations in the Malayalam film industry are reminders of the underbelly of glamour and politics. After five years of waiting, the report of the Justice Hema Commission was made public. The Commission was established in 2018 under the retired Justice K. Hema to review the scope and magnitude of sexual harassment and exploitation in the Malayalam film industry, also known as Mollywood. What has followed is a series of women, be it actresses or those working in the Mollywood industry, coming forward with allegations of harassment and exploitation (sexual and otherwise). The names put under question are genuinely shocking, spanning not merely from the actors and directors but also members of politics and beyond. This has sparked serious concerns about the status of women, not merely in the entertainment industry but women in workplaces everywhere. The uproar it has generated in Kerala, and nationwide, showcases the trend in society towards a growing consciousness about these issues. In such a light, the episode raises critical issues that demand thoughtful consideration. This is just the tip of the iceberg. First, it raises more significant questions and thoughts about the working of commissions/committee reports by the government that are shrouded under secrecy. Bringing transparency to these committee reports and other more extensive government policy-making mechanisms is necessary. There is a growing anger amongst the public against obfuscation and lack of transparent measures. Now, for the public to be upset about government’s delayed response is natural, as such measures underscore the hypocrisy of the communist government that is apparently trying to shield the accused. Meanwhile, the intellectual class at the forefront of asking for transparency and accountability is selective and silent on the issue. Barring a few exceptions, the problem is not given the importance it deserves. Remember the wokes and ultraliberals during Covid-19 who went crazy asking to release data and information about the PM Cares fund? Now, they have embraced silence. Second, it is a far larger issue than Malayalam cinema; it concerns women across the entertainment industry and in workplaces everywhere. The Women in Cinema Collective, the organisation formed in the aftermath of the 2017 assault that triggered the formation of the Justice Hema Commission, should be commended for taking up the initiative and its persistent effort to make the report public. It should also be noted that exploitation is not limited to actresses but goes to different levels of hierarchy within the industry, including the junior artists and supporting staff who are more vulnerable to such advances by the controlling regimes in the industry. The fact that people are underpaid and overexploited for their work through less or no compensation showcases a disturbing trend in regulating the workplace environment. Women are indeed the worst victims, for this idea of the “casting couch” is not merely an attack on their talent and hard work but also their dignity. So far, the government has remained elusive in its response. However, the need of the hour is for the government to come out in support of the victims and formulate workplace norms that prevent such incidents. Third, the most important thing at this stage is to remember that we must stand united against harassment of any kind. Exploitation, bullying or coercion, no matter how innocuous it may seem, are not acceptable. A verbal comment about an inappropriate gesture or a touch should not be tolerable. The dragged response by the Kerala government to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) is a welcome step, but it is not enough. The industry is world-renowned for its progressive nature and the themes it addresses, but the presence of such widespread and systemic problems is a dark spot on its image. Undoubtedly, the dictum of innocent until proven guilty is key at this stage, but what makes the Kerala government stand in the way of justice? If the accused are falsely blamed, the government has more reasons to take a stand and facilitate legal action to ensure that justice is promptly meted out and the truth is revealed. One thing is clear—women need to feel as safe as men do at workplaces. So organizations and the government need to join hands to enforce laws and safety policies if we want to ensure equal participation of women in the workforce. While the POSH Act provides the legal teeth, what’s even more necessary is to create an inclusive and respectful culture among all workers. This can be done only by educating and training the staff. And that is the only way to build a culture where women can voice their opinions and be themselves, free of inhibitions or fear. While the Prime Minister spearheads the campaign of Nari Shakti, where women-driven development is viewed as a key force to push India towards the Viksit Bharat vision, the Kerala episode showcases the existing problems and resistance within the system that seems unwilling to change. Women’s rights and liberty to work without fear and exploitation are not societal ideals but basic necessities. The harrowing news that we witnessed recently, including in Kolkata, should make our skin crawl and open our eyes to these societal ills. The government should stand for higher ideals, not serve its political party and members. This #MeToo moment in the Malayalam film industry should be a wake-up call for everyone, and there is a severe need to revisit and rethink the role of women in the workplace. #Gender #WorkPlace #Safety #WomenSecurity Originally Published : The Sunday Guardian, 1st September 2024 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/gender-security-in-the-spotlight-post-hema-committee-report Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.