India

2016 Country Review

http://www.countrywatch.com Table of Contents

Chapter 1 1 Country Overview 1 Country Overview 2 Key Data 3 India 5 Asia 6 Chapter 2 8 Political Overview 8 History 9 Political Conditions 23 Political Risk Index 79 Political Stability 93 Freedom Rankings 109 Human Rights 120 Government Functions 124 Government Structure 126 Principal Government Officials 133 Leader Biography 136 Leader Biography 136 Foreign Relations 137 National Security 170 Defense Forces 173 Appendix: Kashmir 174 Chapter 3 191 Economic Overview 191 Economic Overview 192 Nominal GDP and Components 195 Population and GDP Per Capita 197 Real GDP and Inflation 198 Government Spending and Taxation 199 Money Supply, Interest Rates and Unemployment 200 Foreign Trade and the Exchange Rate 201 Data in US Dollars 202 Energy Consumption and Production Standard Units 203 Energy Consumption and Production QUADS 205 World Energy Price Summary 206 CO2 Emissions 207 Agriculture Consumption and Production 208 World Agriculture Pricing Summary 211 Metals Consumption and Production 212 World Metals Pricing Summary 215 Economic Performance Index 216 Chapter 4 228 Investment Overview 228 Foreign Investment Climate 229 Foreign Investment Index 233 Corruption Perceptions Index 246 Competitiveness Ranking 257 Taxation 266 Stock Market 267 Partner Links 268 Chapter 5 269 Social Overview 269 People 270 Human Development Index 274 Life Satisfaction Index 278 Happy Planet Index 289 Status of Women 298 Global Gender Gap Index 302 Culture and Arts 311 Etiquette 311 Travel Information 315 Diseases/Health Data 325 Chapter 6 331 Environmental Overview 331 Environmental Issues 332 Environmental Policy 333 Greenhouse Gas Ranking 335 Global Environmental Snapshot 346 Global Environmental Concepts 357 International Environmental Agreements and Associations 371 Appendices 395 Bibliography 396 India

Chapter 1 Country Overview

India Review 2016 Page 1 of 408 pages India

Country Overview

INDIA

India is the largest democracy and second most populous country in the world. Its history dates back to 2500 B.C.E., when the inhabitants of the Indus River valley developed an urban culture based on commerce and sustained by agricultural trade. Aryan tribes from the northwest infiltrated onto the Indian subcontinent about 1500 B.C.E., bringing the indigenous beliefs that evolved into Hinduism, and various empires followed. Arab incursions starting in the 8th century and Turkic in the 12th were followed by those of European traders beginning in the late 15th century. By the 19th century, Britain had assumed political control of virtually all Indian lands. Nonviolent resistance to British colonialism led by Mohandas Gandhi brought independence in 1947, and Pakistan was established as a separate Muslim state because of Muslim-Hindu hostilities. There have been three wars between India and Pakistan since 1947, two of them over the disputed territory of Kashmir. A third war between the two countries in 1971 resulted in East Pakistan becoming the separate nation of Bangladesh. India is now one of the fastest growing economies in the world with a large skilled workforce. The country has a burgeoning urban middle class and has made great strides in fields such as information technology. However, India's economic growth remains constrained by inadequate infrastructure, bureaucracy, labor market rigidities, and regulatory and foreign investment controls. About 60 percent of the population is still living close to, or below, the poverty line.

India Review 2016 Page 2 of 408 pages India

Key Data

Key Data

Region: Asia

Population: 1251695616

Climate: Varies from tropical monsoon in south to temperate in north.

English Hindi Bengali Telugu Marathi Tamil Urdu Gujarati Languages: Malayalam Kannada Oriya Punjabi Assamese Kashmiri Sindhi Sanskrit

Currency: 1 Indian rupee (Rs) = 100 paise

Anniversary of the Republic is 26 January (1950), Indian Independence Day Holiday: is 15 August, Gandhi Jayanti is 2 October

Area Total: 3287590

Area Land: 2973190

India Review 2016 Page 3 of 408 pages India

Coast Line: 7000

India Review 2016 Page 4 of 408 pages India

India

Country Map

India Review 2016 Page 5 of 408 pages India

Asia

Regional Map

India Review 2016 Page 6 of 408 pages India

India Review 2016 Page 7 of 408 pages India

Chapter 2

Political Overview

India Review 2016 Page 8 of 408 pages India

History

Introduction

In many senses, India shares significant portions of ancient history with the other cultures and people of the Indian sub-continent, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Surrounding powers from as far as Greece, eastern Europe, Arabia and Persia have also played a role in India's history. The more recent history of India -- prior to independence in 1947 -- is shared with the countries of the Indian sub-continent, and it heavily influenced by the colonial power of Great Britain. Likewise, in geopolitical terms, India also shares a political legacy with the countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Ancient Indian Civilizations

Though the origin of civilization in India is of the same date as several others like Egyptian, Sumerian and Chinese, India is the only country that has been able to keep a continuous and unbroken link with its past. As a result, the Indian culture has enriched over the past five millennia, accumulating knowledge and experiences from each passing generation.

The people of India have had a continuous civilization since before 2500 B.C.E., when the inhabitants of the Indus River Valley developed a sophisticated urban culture based on commerce and sustained by agricultural trade. During its time, the Indus Valley civilization was the largest civilization of humans. At its prime, it covered an area of over 1.5 million square kilometers, almost half the size of today's India.

The civilization, best known by its city centers of Harappa, Mohen-jo-daro and Lothal (in present- day Pakistan), was an impressive civilization. It was especially well known for its town planning and science and technology, which made it the most advanced human civilization of the period, which had also seen Egyptian, Sumerian and Chinese civilizations. And unlike its contemporary civilizations, the Indian civilization was by far the largest civilization, spread over an area that extended from the eastern borders of Iran in the west right up to eastern India in the east.

The civilization is believed to have possessed the high quality architectural and town planning skills.

India Review 2016 Page 9 of 408 pages India

The towns had broad and straight streets, flanked by houses built of burnt brick on either side. The houses had an open courtyard, private wells and bathrooms. The drainage systems of the towns are amongst the most striking features of this civilization. Pottery pipes attached to the outer walls of the houses carried the wastewater and refuse from the houses to the large street drains, made of stone and carefully cemented and waterproofed with asphalt. Even the common bath and wash facilities like public tanks were lined properly in order to avoid water leaching.

The civilization boasted of several ports and had contacts with various parts of the world. This is borne out by the discovery of Indus valley civilization coins and pieces around the world, especially in West and Central Asia and Southern Europe.

Despite its distinctive development, however, the Indus valley civilization suddenly ceased to exist. Scientists are still debating the possible causes-which could be a sudden natural calamity like a devastating flood or an earthquake.

The Ascendancy of Cultures and Civilizations from the West

In its wake came the Indo-Aryans, an ethno-linguistic group with origins of almost the entire population of today's Europe and south Asia. It was during this period that some of the oldest surviving works of Indian literature and religious scripture were composed. Of these works, the Rig Veda is principally recognized as the oldest book in the world. The Indo-Aryan civilization, too, kept up the contacts with the outside world. This civilization, like its predecessor, flourished and hence, often invited unwelcome attention from invading forces, which were attracted by the stories of wealth in the Indian sub-continent.

Towards the end of 500 B.C.E., the northwestern part of the sub-continent became susceptible to attacks from the enemies. Due to the Himalayas in the north and the sea all around south and deep jungles on the east, the Indian subcontinent was vulnerable to foreign attacks only from the northwestern part, a fact that had led to several drastic changes in the history of this region. In 522 B.C.E., Persian Emperor Darius I became the first foreign king to lead an attack on India, capturing Punjab and Sindh relatively easily. This small region was a critical victory for the Persians, because of its contribution of 10 tons of gold each year as tribute to the Persian Empire. The great city of Takshashila became the capital of the Indian sub-continent territory under the reign of the Persian King, Darius I.

For over 200 years, the area remained under nominal Persian control. Around 330 B.C.E., however, Greek Emperor Alexander defeated Persian King Darius III and took control of the Persian Empire. He, too, was attracted to the wealth and prestige of the Indian sub-continent and in 326 B.C.E. he entered Punjab. Although Alexander managed to capture chunks of Punjab, his travel-weary army soon tired of the wars and mutinied, forcing Alexander to return to Greece.

India Review 2016 Page 10 of 408 pages India

The Birth of New Religions

Meanwhile, the 6th century B.C.E. saw the birth of two important religions-Buddhism and Jainism. (Note that India is also the birthplace of the world's oldest major religion - Hinduism). The founders of both the religions of Buddhism and Jainism were born around the same time and in the same part of India-today's Bihar state. Both were born in noble families and they both were married.

Mahavir-the founder of Jainism-was born in the Lichavi Kingdom and had connections with Bimbisar, the ruler of Magadh Empire (mentioned in the next sub-section). At the age of 30, Mahavir abandoned the worldly ties and spent next 12 years in a life of severe austerities. He attained enlightenment at the age of 42 and continued to preach until his death at the age of 72, perhaps in the year 527 B.C.E. By the time of his death, however, Jainism was firmly established as a religion in India, with over 14,000 monks and nuns taking up the task of spreading his message.

Gautam Buddha, founder of Buddhism, was born in 563 B.C.E. in Lumbini to Maya and Shudodhan, the rulers of the Kingdom of Kapilvastu. Buddha married his cousin Yashodhara and had a son, Rahul. Buddha became increasingly disenchanted with the material world and renounced his worldly possessions. He walked away from his kingdom, with barely his clothes on, and for the next six years, lived in abject conditions, moving around with a begging bowl and seeking salvation. He underwent prolonged fasts and made his body suffer extreme conditions. After six years he realized the limits of these measures and looked deeper for true salvation. He then took up the begging bowl again and moved from town to town. It was then he reached Gaya in central Bihar, where he sat under a tree and pledged not to move until he obtained salvation. He sat motionless and concentrated his mind fully and it was then that he attained nirvana or enlightenment. He then began preaching, moving across large parts of India. At the age of eighty, in 483 B.C.E., Buddha passed away, his body was cremated and the relics were divided into eight portions and buried, with stupas built over them.

The Re-emergence of Indian Power and Influence

By the time Alexander the Great returned to Greece in 323 B.C.E., Takshashila formed part of the powerful Magadha Empire. With its capital in Patliputra, in present day Bihar, Magadha was the first principal Indian empire, which has been recorded by the history.

Chandragupta took over the reigns of Magadha in 321 B.C.E., founding a new Mauryan dynasty.

India Review 2016 Page 11 of 408 pages India

His army was one of the strongest contemporary armies and rapidly captured several areas that had been under the control of the Persians or Greeks for some decades. When Alexander's successor Seleukus tried to recapture the lost territories, he was defeated swiftly and completely in a battle that drove him back all the way to Syria. Once again, the Hindu Kush Mountains in the northwest (present-day eastern Afghanistan) became the external boundaries of India.

Chandragupta also constructed a huge road, the Royal Road, which extended all the way from Takshashila to Patliputra, covering a distance of nearly 2000 km. Chandragupta was advised by his political mentor Kautilya, who perhaps wrote "Arthashastra" - the world's first treatise on the business of politics. The kingdom was extremely well-organized and administered in a very professional manner, run by a supreme council of 8 ministers. Besides building roads that helped his large army to move swiftly across the entire empire, Chandragupta also paid special attention to irrigation of land and to local government. Each city had its own local government run by a municipal board, looking after all the requirements of the urban life.

In 296 B.C.E., Chandragupta gave up the throne to become a Jain monk and was succeeded by his son Bindusar, who himself was an able military general. He expanded the kingdom further and also kept up the contacts with the external world-especially the Greeks. It is Bindusar's son who dominates Indian and global history like few others. Ashoka ascended the throne in 270 B.C.E., nearly 4 years after the death of Bindusar. He also fought several wars and took the Mauryan Empire to its greatest heights. This is the first recorded instance where the entire subcontinent, along with Afghanistan, parts of Iran, Tibet, and Burma formed part of a unified empire.

In the 12th year of his reign, Ashoka fought his last battle-capturing the small rebel state of Kalinga (today's Orissa state on the eastern coast of India). The battle for Kalinga took a heavy toll, with over 200,000 casualties. The conquest proved to be a decisive turning point in Ashoka's life. Remorseful at the damage caused by his aggression, he turned to Buddhism. He renounced war and aggression and became the biggest protagonist of Buddhism. He sent his emissaries all over the world - including Sri Lanka, Greece and Syria. His own son and daughter were sent as emissaries to Sri Lanka, where they spent rest of their lives preaching Buddhism. As an emperor, Ashoka spent most of his time in pious activities.

He set up thousands of monasteries, stupas and temples for the spread of Buddhism, which was the state religion, even though all other religions were also respected. Even today, thousands of stupas bearing Ashoka's inscriptions exist all over India.

Ashoka died in 232 B.C.E. and was succeeded by his grandson. The great Mauryan dynasty did not survive long after, however, and was replaced in a palace coup in 184 B.C.E. The successors were nowhere as strong as the Mauryans and the decline of this central power made India's northwestern region once again vulnerable to foreign attacks.

India Review 2016 Page 12 of 408 pages India

Invading Powers

In the 2nd century B.C.E., Greeks from Bactria, who were in turn displaced by Scythians or Sakas from Central Asia around 80 B.C.E., captured the area. The first Saka king took control of Takshashila and his successor expanded the empire to cover north, western and central India. The Saka rule continued for over 3 centuries until 320 C.E. when another great Indian empire took birth with the ascendance of another Chandragupta to the throne.

The Golden Age

Chandragupta established a rather modest kingdom extending from Pataliputra to Prayag. His son Samudragupta, who succeeded him, was a military genius and carried out conquests non-stop for over three years, which saw the emergence of a kingdom very similar to Ashoka's in size and geographic range. He governed for over 50 years and was a very gifted, multifaceted king who could also play music and write poetry.

In 388 C.E., his son, Vikramaditya, who further extended the kingdom, especially in the turbulent western and northwestern parts, succeeded Samudragupta. Vikramaditya's reign has been well recorded by a Chinese traveler Fa Hian who arrived in India during Vikramaditya's rule. Fa Hian spent six years in India, traveling, studying Sanskrit and visiting monasteries and other holy places. Fa Hian, whose works have survived, has left glowing records of Vikramaditya's reign.

The Gupta period is also called the Golden Age of India. People were prosperous, the government and administration very well organized, light taxes and several facilities like free hospitals for humans and animals, great tree-lined highways criss-crossing the entire land with several rest- houses that offered free lodging and boarding. The period also saw construction of some of the best pieces of architecture, largely temples, many of which still survive.

Vikramaditya died in 415 C.E. and was succeeded by Kumargupta I, who reigned for nearly 40 peaceful and prosperous years. However, when his successor Skandagupta took charge in 455 C.E., India was about face its most turbulent time yet. The Huns from Central Asia and China had been ravaging large parts of the world, having captured most of Europe and central and western Asia. They had been in control of Afghanistan for some time now and had been trying to push into India. The push began finally during Skandagupta's reign. The Guptas recorded initial victories, managing to beat off the hordes of Huns, however, this momentum did not continue for long.

Invasion of the Huns

India Review 2016 Page 13 of 408 pages India

Meanwhile, during this period, Skandagupta died. This was a blow that the Indian empire could not withstand at such a crucial time, resulting in the Huns' invasion of India and the capture of large parts of northern India. Unlike the previous invaders - Persians or Greeks - who had brought elements of civilization and culture and did not go about destroying everything in their sights, the Huns brought only devastation with them. Luckily the Huns were driven out in less than 75 years when several Indian armies got together and fought them off.

Cultural Revival

After the Huns, India once again witnessed a period of peace and prosperity. Yet another notable king emerged during this period - Harsh Vardhan. He consolidated large chunks of India once again into a unified kingdom and restored dignity to the people. During his life, literature, architecture, arts and other cultural activities prospered, as Harsh was very generous and supportive of these activities. Once again, a Chinese traveler Yuan Chwang recorded his life and the kingdom that he governed. The works give an important glimpse into life in India at that time since Chwang traveled widely all over the country and tried to depict as accurate a picture as possible.

In 648 C.E., after nearly 50 years of rule, Harsh died and once again India collapsed under the burden of several split kingdoms that sprung up soon after his death. The weak kings continued to wage battles against each other, sapping their energies, without any regard to the developments in the outside world, where another grave challenge for Indian security was building up. Once again the danger came from the West.

Invading Forces and Islamic Influence

By 710 C.E., the Arabs had captured almost all of West Asia and large tracts of southwestern Europe as well. In 712, they invaded Sindh province and captured it due to infighting amongst the local kings. The Arabs, though, did not advance beyond Sindh, but kept it under their control for the ensuing 3 centuries. This invasion did not sufficiently signal a warning to the Indian kings, who continued to plot against each other, and failed to consolidate their power against invading forces.

The domestic quarrels brought along other invaders, far more serious and crippling than the Arabs. In the 11th and 12th centuries, invaders from eastern Iran and central Asia again poured into India, taking advantage of the weak kingdoms with small, ill-equipped armies. If the Indian kings had realized the dangers posed by these invaders and united, they could have beaten off the challenge. However, they chose to use the foreigners to settle the domestic scores and soon the entire north India was under the grip of the foreign rulers, who used it only for plundering the wealth of the country and weakening its defenses even more.

India Review 2016 Page 14 of 408 pages India

In the beginning of the 11the century, northern Sindh fell Mahmud of Ghazni, the Turkish ruler hailing from Ghazni in present day Iran, while southern Sindh was ruled by Hindu kings from Rajputana and Gujarat. Ghazni, who had no interest in capturing India, raided the country several times and destroyed cities, while carrying away a lot of wealth from the country. He was followed in 1173 C.E. by Muhammed Ghauri, who now occupied the throne at Ghazni.

The aforementioned Arab conquest of Sindh also marked the first Islamic influence in India. The Arabs and the Turks who followed them were quick to convert their subjects to Islam and after several centuries of Islamic rule, the area had a Muslim majority. For almost 5 centuries, various Islamic kings from various parts of Central and West Asia continued to raid India, lured by its wealth. A disunited India, ruled by several kings of small kingdoms, could not resist the attacks, which not only left large cities and villages devastated but also saw Indian wealth go into foreign hands.

The Mughals: A Muslim Dynasty

This trend, however, came to an end in the early 13th century, with the establishment of a Muslim dynasty in Delhi. The founder was Qutub ud din Aibak, a former slave who rose to become a general in Muhammed Ghauri's Army. A succession of Islamic kings followed for the next 3 centuries, until the arrival of the Mughals in the early 16th century.

Babar, the first Mughal emperor, is supposed to have originated from the present day Afghanistan and established the Mughal kingdom in 1526 C.E. For almost three centuries, Mughal emperors ruled almost all of India and also recaptured the parts in northwest that had been taken over Turkish or other invaders. Unlike the other Islamic rulers before them, the Mughals really made India their home and contributed significantly to the country's architecture and literature. The Mughal era is often compared with the Gupta era of earlier centuries for its contribution to the country's literature, architecture and general wealth.

Developments in Southern India

The southern parts of India had remained largely untouched by foreign invaders throughout the Indian history, until the beginning of the 19th century with the conquests by the colonizing European powers.

At the end of the Mauryan dynasty after Ashoka, the southern half of India was controlled by the Andhra kings, hailing from the southeastern parts of India. In the 2ndcentury B.C.E., an Andhra

India Review 2016 Page 15 of 408 pages India king founded the Satavahana dynasty that ruled almost continuously until the 3rd century C.E. But perhaps even before the Satavahana there existed kingdoms like Pandaya, Chola and Chera kingdoms, which coincided with Ashoka's reign in the 4th century B.C.E. Kings from northern India rarely subjugated these kingdoms. However, they continued to wage battles of supremacy for more than one thousand years.

Interestingly, the southern Indian kings, though extremely powerful, rarely ventured to conquer northern India and had drawn an invisible line at the Vindhya Mountains and Narmada River as the northern limits of their territories. They did, however, manage to capture territories beyond the Indian borders, with Sri Lanka and large chunks of southeast Asia being under their control from time to time. Just as their northern counterparts did, the southern kings, too, devoted a lot of attention to building marvelous temples and palaces all over, despite always being at war with each other. During the war, temples were left untouched by the invading armies. Thousands of these are still standing and in daily use by the devotees.

European Influence and British Rule

Meanwhile, during the Mughal rule, the first Europeans stepped on Indian soil and established their posts. British traders arrived in South Asia in 1601 and established themselves in the east at Calcutta. The Mughal Empire continued until the middle of the 19th century, by which time the British and other foreign powers had started conquering chunks of India. By 1830, almost all of India was under the British control. The opposition to the British rule took root even before the British had firmly established themselves. Sensing the danger and applying lessons learned, several Indian kings tried to come together and fight the British. Some also took help of the traditional British rivals like the French in order to hold off the advance.

Nevertheless, it was only in 1857 that the first organized battle for independence took place. By this time, most of India was under British control and the Indians had come to realize that the British had managed to capture India only by dividing the country and playing one against the other. Also in 1857, several Indian states joined hands, under the leadership of Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal emperor, to stage a war against the British. Thousands of Indian soldiers serving in the British army too joined hands with the independence fighters and several critical victories were registered. However, once again, the lack of total unity among Indians led to the eventual victory of the British over the Indian armies. British rule prevailed in India.

The Emergence of Indian Nationalism

Though the British had won the immediate battles for supremacy in India, the seeds of a long

India Review 2016 Page 16 of 408 pages India struggle for independence had already been sown. In the late 1870s, barely 20 years after the battle, several Indian leaders like Gopal Krishna Gokhale, began speaking of total independence from the British and emphasized the need for an organized movement to oust the colonial power. In 1885, these leaders founded Indian National Congress, a movement that was eventually going to lead India to its freedom in 1947.

A major drawback of the early nationalists was that the movement was confined to the few educated Indians and the middle class and hence, it was concentrated around the major cities like Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi. The earlier leaders also chose to function within the law and as a result, their impact was limited and slow in spreading across the country. Gradually, however, the Indian leaders were increasingly disillusioned with the British and began to press for the attainment of Swaraj or freedom, which they realized could be achieved only by involving the masses in the country's political affairs. They also began using popular festivals all over the country to spread their new messages.

The Struggle for Independence

By the turn of the century, a firm foundation had been given to the freedom struggle, which had now spread across large parts of the country, with the Congress clearly at the forefront of the movement. The state of Bengal, which was relatively well educated, provided most of the human capital and firepower for the struggle. Bengal's capital, Calcutta, also served as the national capital during the period.

The British, realizing the difficulties of holding on to India, tried to divide the independence movement. In 1905 under the pretext that the state was too big to be governed properly, they divided the eastern state of Bengal, which was spearheading the independence movement. The division was clearly based on religion with eastern Bengal being Muslim dominated while the western part had a largely Hindu population. The division of Bengal immediately drew strong protests from the Indians. Their argument was that if Bengal had to be divided at all, the British should have begun by taking out the areas that were never really part of the state, such as Bihar and Assam, which were culturally and linguistically different from Bengal. The intensity of these protests worked to force the British to abandon their plans of division of Bengal.

Communal Differences

The British, nonetheless, had clearly formulated their strategy for keeping India under colonial rule. They hoped that by sowing seeds of division between the two of the biggest communities of India, they would be able to prolong their rule. They were helped to some extent by the fears of some extremists in both the Hindu as well as the Muslim camps. Concerns about a Hindu-dominated

India Review 2016 Page 17 of 408 pages India

Indian National Congress, the freedom movement's foremost organization, led some Muslim leaders to form the All-India Muslim League in 1906. Many notable Muslim leaders, however, stayed with the Congress.

Documents dating back to the late 19th century show the British strategy had been in the making for sometime. Lord Dufferin, the British Viceroy of India between 1884 and 1888 was advised by the secretary of state in London that "the division of religious feelings is greatly to our advantage," and that he expected "some good as a result of your committee of inquiry on Indian education and on teaching material." A few years later, Lord Curzon (governor general of India 1895-1899 and viceroy 1899-1904) was told by the Secretary of State for India, George Francis Hamilton, that they "should so plan the educational text books (in such a manner) that the differences between community and community are further strengthened." Thus, it was with the creation of the Muslim League that the British saw their best chance to extend their rule in India.

Gandhi's Influence on the Independence Project

The British were faced with a formidable task in regard to retaining control over India. Their strategy to keep India divided along communal lines was dramatically compromised with the entry of a diminutive and frail person as one of the leaders of the Congress. On his return from South Africa during the First World War, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi immediately plunged into the independence movement. Very soon, he was to become the symbol of the independence movement in India and a symbol of peaceful civil disobedience and other campaigns the world over.

In 1919, the independence movement reached yet another level. The British had just enacted the Rowlatt Act that allowed the government to arrest any person without the right to a trial. The Act drew strong protests from all over the country. One such protest meeting was held at Jalianwala Bagh in Amritsar, in Punjab, when over 10,000 people gathered in a small public square, enclosed by walls from all four sides, with a small gate as the only exit point. While the protesters were peacefully listening to their leaders, the British troops, led by General Dyer, shot and killed over 5,000 people. This tragedy was yet another turning point in the long struggle of independence, as it outraged people all over the country and also sparked the extremists to join the independence movement. The massacre was followed by a series of killings of senior British officials, including General Dyer who was shot dead in the United Kingdom. The extreme elements of the independence movement, however, were always under the shadow of the exponents of peace, led by Gandhi.

In 1920, Gandhi launched the non-cooperation and swadeshi (indigenous) movement. It began with renunciation of honorary British titles like 'sir" and "Lord" and spread soon to the boycott of

India Review 2016 Page 18 of 408 pages India legislatures, elections and other Government institutions. Gandhi also emphasized that unless India became self sufficient and stopped relying on the British for foreign goods, independence could not be achieved. The swadeshi movement gathered strength and millions of Indians turned out in the streets, burning their foreign produced goods and donning "khadi," which became a symbol of nationalism.

The British, once again, cracked down heavily against the movement and within a year, all the important leaders, except Gandhi, had been jailed. The movement came to an abrupt end in 1922 when it turned violent in February 1922 in Uttar Pradesh where some British nationals were killed by extremists. Gandhi, who had always emphasized the importance of a peaceful campaign, immediately called off the movement.

This measure notwithstanding, the military and economic pressures of World War I had made the British departure imminent. The British though, tried to exploit divisions between the Hindus and Muslims to the hilt, sowing the seeds of the idea of an independent Muslim country in place of the idea of a unitary and independent India, which had been Gandhi's vision.

In 1927, the British tried to gain time by appointing the Simon Commission to review the Rowlatt Act and also the general system of governance. Since the commission did not have a single Indian member, the Congress decided to boycott the commission and once again a mass movement was launched. The public outcry against the failure to appoint an Indian member to the commission resulted in a boycott.

By this time, the Congress leadership had also realized the futility of waiting for the British to leave and decided to accelerate the timetable for independence. In 1929, at its Lahore session, under the guidance of Motilal Nehru -- the father of future Indian leader, Jawaharlal Nehru -- the Congress adopted a resolution of "Purna Swaraj" (Complete Independence). At the session, the Congress also chose the tricolour as the national flag of a free India. On December 31, 1929, the tricolour was unfurled for the first time and it was decided to celebrate January 26, 1930, as Independence Day every year.

At the same time, Congress also decided to launch the civil disobedience movement, with an aim not to submit to British rule any longer. In tandem, Gandhi launched the famous Dandi march to break the Salt Law, which restricted the production of salt only to the government. Although this act was viewed with nonchalant disregard by the British authorities at first, it was intended to demonstrate symbolic non-cooperation with British colonial governance. Thusly, on March 12, 1930, the march started from Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad and ended at Dandi on the coast. The stretch of 375 kilometers was covered in 26 days. The march drew unprecedented response all over the country, and indeed, across the Western world. Almost the entire of India joined the campaign to boycott foreign goods and refuse to pay taxes. The British again resorted to brutal force and about 90,000 people were imprisoned within a year, including Gandhi who spent over 7

India Review 2016 Page 19 of 408 pages India months in prison.

Pre-Independence Developments

The British once again resorted to their traditional strategy of encouraging dissent from the ranks of the Muslim League. In 1930, the Muslim League, under the leadership of its highly ambitious leader Mohammed Ali Jinnah, declared that it was the sole representative of the Indian Muslims, and that the Congress did not protect the Muslim interests. The League, professing fears of Hindu domination, had advanced demands for special privileges in the proposed dominion government. In the course of the resultant controversy, bitter Hindu-Muslim rioting ravaged many communities of India. Adding to the misery and suffering of the common Indian citizens, the global economic crisis, which had begun in 1929, completely disrupted the economy of India during the early 1930s. Some degree of peace was re-established due to the efforts of Gandhi who implored Muslims and Hindus to refrain from acts of violence.

Meanwhile, the British invited the Congress to attend a "round table" conference in London to decide the reforms in the governance system of India. The Congress boycotted the frist round table conference held in 1930, however, the next year, the party agreed to participate and nominated Gandhi to attend the discussions.

Gandhi's attendance and popularity in London notwithstanding, the second round table conference was a failure, as no agreement was reached and the civil disobedience movement was revived. The Congress again boycotted the third round of discussions but the British forged ahead and drew up the Government of India Act, 1935. This was followed by elections to state legislative assemblies in which the Congress won a comfortable majority in 7 of the 11 states that went to the polls. In the first ever-popular test of the Muslim League's appeal among the Muslim voters, the party won only a quarter of all the seats reserved for the Muslims.

These democratic changes did not last for long. In 1939, the British declared war on Germany in the name of India as well, without consulting the Indian leaders. The Congress ministries resigned in protest against this unilateral decision and resumed the civil disobedience movement, however, the British continued to force India to contribute to the war effort. By the end of the war in 1945, India had contributed over 1.5 million men as Allied troops and also paid over $12 billion for the war expenses.

Meanwhile, the anti-British campaign continued and in March 1942, the British promised India full independence at the end of the war and suggested the establishment of an interim Indian government, with the British holding control of defense and foreign affairs only. These proposals were rejected by both the Congress and the League. In the wake of the proposals' failure, a massive movement, called "Quit India" was launched on August 9, 1942.

India Review 2016 Page 20 of 408 pages India

The British reacted with unprecedented force. Gandhi, Nehru, and thousands of their supporters were imprisoned, and the Congress was outlawed. The movement continued, however, and bolstered with the moral high ground of Gandhian non-violence, the British now admitted that their legitimacy was precipitously slipping and they could not hold on to power for much longer. They declared their intention to launch negotiations with the leaders for the purpose of granting India independence. In 1944, Gandhi was released from prison and along with Jinnah, he began negotiations with the British.

A decade's worth of strife between Muslim and Hindu India began to show its effects in the 1940s. The League told the Muslim elites in the Muslim majority states that they would be denied all rights in a Hindu-dominated India and that only they-the Muslim League-could guarantee their rights as Muslims. Then, in the 1945 provincial elections, the League ended up with almost half the seats in Bengal, and it gained in Punjab, winning as many as the Unionist party, and thus pushed the Congress to the third place in those regions. This political victory signaled the credibility of their claim for partition and Muslim self-government.

It is noteworthy that although Jinnah and the Muslim League embodied the most powerful Islamic voices in India, there were also several important Islamic theologians who were against partition. Maulana Madani undertook a whirlwind tour to campaign against the League while representatives of the Muslim working class were also against partition. The Ansari Muslims (weavers by profession) who were very politically conscious and well-organized in Northern India publicly demonstrated against the League's partition resolution also. These ought to have weakened the claim of Muslim League that it was the sole representative of the Muslims in India, but the British, by now actually eager to get out of India, accepted the League as the sole representative of the Muslims.

Indian Independence

In June 1945, India became a charter member of the United Nations. In the same month the British government issued a white paper on the Indian situation. The proposals, however, closely resembled those, which had been rejected by both the Congress and the League. Another deadlock developed, and during the second half of 1945 a new wave of anti-British riots and outbursts swept over India. Three representatives of the British government made another attempt to negotiate an agreement with Indian leaders in the spring of 1946.

Although the Muslim League temporarily withdrew its demands for the partition of India along religious lines, insuperable differences developed with respect to the character of an interim government. The negotiations were fruitless, and in June the British viceroy Archibald Wavell announced the formation of an emergency "caretaker" government. An interim executive council,

India Review 2016 Page 21 of 408 pages India headed by Congress' Jawaharlal Nehru and representative of all major political groups except the Muslim League, replaced this government in September. In the next month the Muslim League agreed to participate in the new government. Nonetheless, communal strife between Muslims and Hindus increased in various parts of India.

By the end of 1946, the political situation in the subcontinent was on the brink of anarchy. The British Prime Minister Clement Atlee announced in February 1947 that his government would relinquish power in India no later than June 30, 1948. According to the announcement, the move would be made whether or not the political factions of India agreed on a constitution before that time.

Partition of India

Political tension mounted in India following the announcement, creating grave possibilities of a disastrous Hindu-Muslim civil war. After consultations with Indian leaders, Louis Mountbatten, who succeeded Wavell as viceroy in March 1947, recommended immediate partition of India to the British government as the only means of averting catastrophe. A bill incorporating Mountbatten's recommendations was introduced into the British Parliament on July 4; it obtained speedy and unanimous approval in both houses of Parliament. Under the provisions of this enactment, termed the Indian Independence Act, which became effective on August 15, 1947, India and Pakistan were established as independent nations within the Commonwealth of Nations, with the right to withdraw from or remain within the Commonwealth.

The new states of India and Pakistan were created along religious lines. Areas inhabited predominantly by Hindus were allocated to India and those with a predominantly Muslim population were allocated to Pakistan. Because the overwhelming majority of the people of the Indian subcontinent are Hindus, partition resulted in the inclusion within the Union of India, as the country was then named, of most of the 562 princely states in existence prior to August 15, 1947, as well as the majority of the British provinces and parts of three of the remaining provinces.

Consequently, a bifurcated Muslim nation separated by more than 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) of Indian territory emerged when Pakistan became an independent country on August 14, 1947: West Pakistan comprised the contiguous Muslim-majority districts of present-day Pakistan; East Pakistan consisted of a single province, which, after gaining independence following a revolution in 1971, is now Bangladesh. The two sides-the Congress and the Muslim League were unable to come to any agreement over the status of the highly contentious state of Jammu and Kashmir. The issue was left unresolved at the time of the partition, leaving it up to the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir to make a decision on whether to merge with Pakistan or remain with India.

The Maharaja of Kashmir was reluctant to make a decision on accession to either Pakistan or

India Review 2016 Page 22 of 408 pages India

India. Armed incursions into the state by tribesman from the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), however, led him to seek military assistance from India. The Maharaja signed accession papers in October 1947 and allowed Indian troops into much of the state. The government of Pakistan refused to recognize the accession and campaigned to reverse the decision. To this day, the status of Kashmir remains in dispute. (See discussion under Foreign Relations).

India in the Early Years of Independence

On Aug. 15, 1947, after nearly a century of fighting the British, India obtained independence from over two centuries of colonial rule. Congress leader and Mahatma Gandhi's close associate, Jawaharlal Nehru, took over as the first prime minister of India. India became a republic after promulgating its constitution on January 26, 1950, and the first fully democratic and free elections were held in 1952, which saw a resounding win for the Congress.

Meanwhile, on Jan. 30, 1948, Gandhi was assassinated in New Delhi by a Hindu extremist opposed to Gandhi's amicable approach to Muslims. This national tragedy effectively terminated the celebration of independence and exacerbated the tensions between Hindus and Muslims.

Supplementary sources: IPCS, New Delhi, IDSA, New Delhi, A history of India by Gertrude, Emerson and Sen. The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, The Times of India, New Delhi, rediff.com, and indiainfo.com.

Note on History: In certain entries, open source content from the State Department Background Notes and Country Guides have been used. A full listing of sources is available in the Bibliography.

Political Conditions

The Political Legacy of the Congress Party

Following independence, the Congress Party ruled India for an unbroken spell of over 45 years, with the exception of two brief periods in the 1970s and 1980s. Prime Minister Nehru governed the nation until his death in 1964. Lal Bahadur Shastri succeeded Nehru; Shastri also died in office in 1966 and the power passed to Nehru's daughter, Indira Gandhi, prime minister from 1966 to 1977. In 1975, beset with deepening political and economic problems, Gandhi declared a state of

India Review 2016 Page 23 of 408 pages India emergency and suspended many civil liberties. Seeking a mandate at the polls for her policies, she called for elections in 1977, only to be defeated by Moraji Desai, who headed the Janata Party, an amalgam of five opposition parties.

In 1979, Desai's government crumbled under the weight of its coalition partners. Charan Singh, who led one of the coalition partners, formed an interim government, on support from the Congress Party. In fresh elections held in January 1980, the Congress under Indira Gandhi staged a dramatic comeback. She ruled with her typical iron grip until her assassination in October 1984 by her Sikh bodyguards. Her son, Rajiv Gandhi, was elected leader of the Congress Party to take her place. He thus became the youngest prime minister of India at an age of barely 41 years. He led the Congress to an unprecedented electoral victory in the elections held soon afterwards. Though initially he proved to be a very popular prime minister, his government was soon involved in several cases of alleged corruption, which led to his electoral defeat in the 1989 elections. Defeating him was Janata Dal, a coalition of the opposition parties, united under the leadership of V.P. Singh, a one-time lieutenant of Rajiv Gandhi.

The Janata Dal, which was supported by the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on the right and the communists on the left, did not enjoy an extended tenure. Within 18 months, the loose coalition collapsed and in November 1990, a breakaway Janata Dal group under Chandra Shekhar formed the new government, with the support of the Congress Party. That alliance also collapsed, resulting in national elections in June 1991.

On May 21, 1991, while campaigning in Tamil Nadu on behalf of his party, Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated, allegedly by Tamil extremists from Sri Lanka. In the elections, Congress won 213 parliamentary seats and put together a coalition, returning to power under the leadership of P.V. Narasimha Rao. He was the first Congress Party prime minister in 30 years who did not come from the Gandhi/Nehru family.

Rao's Congress government served a full five-year term. This period marked the beginning of a gradual process of economic liberalization and reform, which opened the Indian economy to the globe. India's domestic politics also took a new shape, as divisions of caste, creed, and ethnicity gave rise to a plethora of small, regionally based political parties. The final months of the Rao government in the spring of 1996 were noted for several major political corruption scandals, which contributed to the worst electoral performance by the Congress Party in its history.

Editor's Note: Priding itself as a secular, centrist party, the Congress has historically been the dominant political party in India. Its performance in national elections steadily declined during the 1990s, however. In the fall 1999 elections (discussed below), the Congress Party suffered it worst defeat in 50 years. But the party continued to hold power in some key states. It ruled Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Karnataka, besides several smaller states in the northeast of the country.

India Review 2016 Page 24 of 408 pages India

The Ascendancy of the Hindu Nationalists The Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) emerged from the May 1996 national elections as the single largest party in the Lok Sabha (House of the People), but without a majority in the parliament.

The Hindu-nationalist BJP traditionally draws its political strength from the Hindi belt in the northern and western regions of India. The party currently holds power in the states of Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh (in coalition with several small parties), Himachal Pradesh (in coalition with Himachal Vikas Congress), Haryana, Punjab and Orissa. Long associated as the party of the upper caste and trading community, the BJP has received increasing support from lower castes in recent state assembly elections.

Though the party did not enjoy a majority after the 1996 elections, it tried to form a new government under Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, but it lasted only thirteen days before resigning en masse. With all political parties wishing to avoid another round of elections, a 14-party coalition led by the Janata Dal emerged to form a government known as the United Front, under the former Chief Minister of Karnataka, H.D. Deve Gowda. His government lasted less than a year, as the leader of the Congress Party withdrew his support for the government in March 1997.

Inder Kumar Gujral replaced Deve Gowda as the consensus choice for prime minister, taking office in April 1997 in a reshuffling of the United Front coalition. Prime Minister Gujral led an extremely diverse and often unwieldy 16-party coalition government.

Kocheril Raman Narayanan won the presidential elections in July 1997. This was a significant event because it was the first time Indians had elected a president who came from a Dalit or "untouchable" background. (Note: As a constitutional republic, India's head of state is the president and the head of government is the prime minister. See the sections on Government for further information about the organizational structure.)

That same year the United Front government was confronted with a series of corruption and criminal charges brought against high-profile officials. Faced with the responsibility of resolving these and other pending issues, the government began to lose ground. In November 1997, the Congress Party again withdrew support for the United Front and the government fell.

Shortly after, the Lok Sabha was dissolved on the premise that both the Congress Party and the BJP were unable to establish an alternative coalition government. It was decided that Gujral would continue as prime minister until new elections were held in early 1998.

India Review 2016 Page 25 of 408 pages India

The Congress Party was in a chaotic state of affairs by the end of December 1997. Sonia Gandhi, widow of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, agreed to help the ailing Congress by campaigning. She quickly won the people's confidence and revived support for her Congress Party, but refused to pursue actual parliamentary office.

In the February and March 1998 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP again won the largest number of seats, 180, but fell far short of a majority. The Congress Party received 141 seats, and after the elections, Sonia Gandhi became their new president. On March 15, 1998, President Narayanan appointed Atal Bihari Vajpayee, parliamentary leader of the BJP, to try to form a coalition government. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee took office on March 19, 1998. He led a diverse and unwieldy 18-party coalition government. The coalition reflected the ongoing transition in Indian politics away from the historically dominant and national-based Congress Party toward smaller, more narrowly-based regional parties. This process has been underway throughout much of the 1990s. In some southern states, such as Tamil Nadu, this process has been ongoing since the 1960s.

Prime Minister Vajpayee's government celebrated its one-year anniversary on March 19, 1999, and lasted an additional month. The government fell on April 17, 1999, when it lost a vote of confidence, called by Prime Minister Vajpayee, by only one vote (270 against the government to 269 for). The vote of confidence was precipitated by the April 14 withdrawal of the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (ADMK), the second largest party in the governing coalition. The BJP-led government's fate was sealed when the five members of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) defected to the opposition.

Sonia Gandhi, leader of the opposition Congress Party, refused to try to form a multi-party coalition government. She attempted to establish a minority Congress-led government, but failed to obtain the necessary support from the other opposition parties in the Lok Sabha. Outgoing Prime Minister Vajpayee was also unable to form a majority coalition. This situation prompted President Narayanan to dissolve the Lok Sabha, based on the cabinet's recommendation, and call new elections for September and early October 1999.

Italian-born Gandhi fended off a challenge to her leadership of the Congress Party in May 1999. Three members of her own party, Tariq Anwar, Sharad Pawar and Purno Sangma, sent a letter to Gandhi detailing why foreign-born citizens should not lead the Congress Party or become prime minister. The three also called for a constitutional reform to prevent non-native-born citizens from serving as prime minister. At first, Gandhi resigned her post as Congress Party president, but withdrew her resignation after thousands of her supporters took to the streets; hundreds of Congress Party officials resigned in protest; and Anwar, Pawar, and Purno were expelled from Congress. The three soon formed their own party, the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). In late July, Gandhi announced that she would stand in the fall elections.

India Review 2016 Page 26 of 408 pages India

In June 1999, in anticipation of the fall 1999 elections, the NCP formed an electoral alliance with the Samajwadi Party, led by Mulayam Singh Yadav. The alliance was expected to fare well in both Uttar Pradesh, where the Samajwadi Party is based, and in Maharashtra, because of Sharad Pawar's connections to that state. Ideologically, the alliance is similar to the Congress Party with whom the NCP broke, but claims to offer voters a "Third Front" option to both the Congress Party and the ruling BJP. In July, the Congress Party formed an electoral alliance with ADMK such that the two parties would not compete in the same constituencies.

Gandhi's campaign was based primarily on financial sector reform and job creation. Congress also worked to sell her as a representative of the lower castes and the Muslim minority, which felt alienated by the Hindu nationalist BJP. While her rallies were impressive, support for Sonia Gandhi and the Congress Party failed to gain momentum in the face of its history of injustices against Muslims (i.e. sterilization of Muslims under Indira Gandhi, its failure to prevent the 1992 demolition of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya), Sonia Gandhi's lack of experience as a politician, as well as her late announcement that Congress may form a coalition government, if necessary. Given the instability of the previous coalition government, this statement may have concerned potential Congress supporters.

In the elections of fall 1999, the BJP and its 25 allies secured the majority with 299 of the seats, followed by Sonia Gandhi's Congress Party and its allies with a disappointing 134 seats, its worst performance in 50 years. The National Democratic Alliance's success was not sweeping but it did gain more seats in parliament, as well as a more diverse group of supporters. This is most likely due to the BJP's forming of several alliances with disparate parties, as well as its diminishing emphasis on Hindu nationalism. Also, the BJP played up Vajpayee's responsibility for the growing economy and the expulsion of Pakistani forces from Kargil in July. Vajpayee was re-elected prime minister.

Sonia Gandhi did win both seats that she contested and took the seat in parliament representing Amethi, Uttar Pradesh; held by both her late husband Rajiv Gandhi and her late mother-in-law Indira Gandhi. Despite the poor showing of the Indian National Congress, Gandhi remained party leader.

The elections, however, did not proceed smoothly. Rebel groups in the northern and eastern regions called for a general boycott of the elections. The National Liberation Front of Tripura was blamed for the kidnapping of sixteen government officials in September. On the third day of voting, 30 were killed in landmine attacks in Bihar and 10 more were killed in Kashmir when soldiers fired on demonstrators. Thirteen more people died on the last day of voting in the northeastern regions of Assam and Tripura.

The government's first challenge came just a few weeks after the elections when two cyclones struck the eastern state of Orissa within two weeks ultimately killing at least 10,000 and leaving

India Review 2016 Page 27 of 408 pages India nearly two million homeless. Both national and state governments came under criticism for being unprepared in terms of money and procedure for such a disaster.

The primary focus for the new government was to keep India's economy on the upswing. To this effect, the government has been pushing trade agreements with its neighbors, specifically Vietnam and Myanmar. A piece of legislation was introduced in late November 1999 opening up the insurance industry to private investors, including foreign companies. Though the proposal was opposed by the Left parties and the insurance workers, the bill was approved.

India continued with the liberalization in the year 2000, opening up the domestic market for imported goods in a significant way in the budget for the year 2000. It also signed several trade agreements with its major trading partners like the European Union (EU) and the United States (U.S.) for opening up the markets and encouraging foreign investments.

A Climate of Conflict from 2000-2001

The ever-volatile situation between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and Jammu took a turn for the worse in the beginning of the year, with several terrorist attacks on civil as well as military targets. However, July saw a major turning point, when Hizbul Mujahideen, the biggest militant group, offered a unilateral cease-fire and expressed its desire to open negotiations with the Indian government. The cease-fire offer was immediately accepted and the two sides began negotiations on July 25, 2000. The negotiations, which were the first such talks between the government and the militants, lasted for nearly two weeks. These talks broke down after Hizbul Mujahideen called off the cease-fire and walked out of the peace talks in response to the Indian government's refusal to involve Pakistan in the negotiations.

On the morning of Jan. 26, 2001, as India was celebrating its 51st Republic Day, a severe earthquake, measuring 7.8 on the Richter scale hit large parts of Gujarat in western India. The earthquake was one of the worst ever to hit India. It reduced several major towns in the Kutch region of Gujarat to complete rubble, claimed over 30,000 lives and turned millions into being homeless. The earthquake caused damage of over five billion dollars. International aid was immediately rushed to the quake-affected areas and rescue efforts continued for over 10 days. The process of rehabilitation was expected to continue for much longer. Nearly five months after the quake, most quake-affected people were still living in temporary shelters, waiting for the reconstruction of their homes, schools and offices to begin.

In March 2001, the government of Atal Behari Vajpayee was rocked again -- this time by a major corruption scandal. In a sensational undercover operation, a news Web site exposed corruption in the Defense Ministry and also among major politicians of the ruling coalition. Specifically,

India Review 2016 Page 28 of 408 pages India

Tehelka.com (which means sensation in Hindi and Urdu), sent two of its reporters, armed with hidden microphones and cameras, posing as representatives of a fictitious British company interested in selling defense equipment for the Indian army. The two bribed their way through the high levels of the army establishment in order to win the "contract." They also filmed president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Bangaru Laxman, accepting 100,000 rupees ($2500) in cash in return for a promise to help the two meet senior ministers in the government and for helping them to bag the contract. The reporters also filmed the president of the Samata Party - another political party that is part of the ruling coalition and whose leader George Fernandes was the defense minister - accepting money in exchange for setting up meetings and help in getting the deal through. The expose, one of the biggest such cases in the recent times, came as a big blow to the government, which was almost on the brink of collapse following the revelations. The army suspended nearly a dozen senior officials including a lieutenant general and several other officers implicated in the scandal.

The opposition Congress Party seized the opportunity that the scandal offered by organizing huge protests in various parts of the country, and by demanding the resignation of the entire Vajpayee government. The government refused to resign, however, claiming that the entire case was a conspiracy to destabilize India and it had been hatched in foreign countries by powers opposed to India. The Congress leader, Sonia Gandhi, and the Congress Party carried the protests into the halls of government, however, causing the work in the parliament to be severely disrupted. To add to Bharatiya Janata Party's troubles, its own partners in the coalition, were getting uneasy about the scandal and several of them openly called for heads to roll following the revelations. One coalition partner, Trinamool Congress, which had allied with the BJP in the eastern state of Bengal, decided to walk out of the coalition, narrowing the already-thin majority that the coalition commanded in the lower house of parliament. Realizing that the opposition was not going to let go of the matter and that its own partners may begin deserting, the government finally conceded some ground. Over a week after the first revelations, defense minister George Fernandes resigned and the president of the BJP, Bangaru Laxman, also resigned, even though he maintained his innocence. He was replaced by another BJP stalwart, Jana Krishnamurthy, at the helm of the party.

The government also ordered an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation - a federal agency - into the entire affair. The government, however, refused to order an inquiry into the matter by an all-party team of members of the parliament. The opposition continued its protests inside and outside the parliament, leading to a total suspension of any discussions or activities by the lawmakers until the parliament went in for a recess in May.

That the scandal had hit the image and the fortunes of the ruling coalition became evident in the elections to the four state assemblies that were held in May 2001. The ruling BJP and its allies lost power in two of the states while the opposition parties maintained their grip on power in two others. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, the ruling alliance of BJP and DMK, a major local party, received a drubbing from an opposition alliance, which included Congress, the principal

India Review 2016 Page 29 of 408 pages India opposition party in the parliament. The alliance won over three-fourths of the seats. In the neighboring state of Kerala, the Congress again scored an emphatic victory, claiming over two- thirds of the seats, though this time it had edged out the ruling Communist government. In the north-eastern state of Assam, the ruling coalition of the BJP and AGP, a local party, was again trounced, with Congress grabbing the majority in the house. To complete the rout, Congress and its allies also installed themselves at the helm in the southern territory of Pondicherry.

Though the elections were for the state assemblies, their results were seen as the voters' verdict on the federal government's performance as well. Though the BJP leadership tried to deny that the vote was against the federal government, most analysts said that the huge losses suffered by the BJP and its allies boded poorly for the federal coalition.

In April 2001, tensions flared up along the Indo-Bangladesh border in the northeastern state of Assam. The border has never been clearly demarcated along some parts and this often leads to tensions as border guards from both countries claim territories, as exemplified by minor clashes at the border. These are highly localized and minor incidents that do not affect the bilateral relationship. That said, in April, the fighting got out of hand and a total of 19 border guards- 16 of them Indians - were killed in the worst clash ever between the two countries. Bangladesh troops alleged that the Indian border guards were building a road in their territory and that led to the dispute. The Indians on the other hand alleged that the Bangladeshi border forces had intruded into India. The matter had the potential of exploding into a bigger dispute, derailing the improvement in the bilateral relations that has been going on for the last five years. Both Bangladeshi and Indian governments reacted with urgency in order keep the tensions low along the border and to ensure that the fighting did not erupt again. The two sides immediately dispatched senior officials for talks and formed a working group to demarcate the border and to end to any potential disputes.

Meanwhile, the situation in the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir remained complicated and tense throughout 2000. The cease-fire offered in July 2000 by Hizbul Mujahideen, the largest local militant group in the state, did not last long. Hizbul was under tremendous pressure from other militant organizations, especially the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba, which had gone on to sharply criticize the cease-fire and promised it would step up its own terrorist activities during the cease-fire. India, however, tried to sieze the opportunity to launch peace talks with Hizbul and other organizations in the state. The two sides held several preliminary meetings in order to lay down a framework for negotiations and to take some confidence building measures. However, the talks did not last long as Hizbul was pressured to call off the talks and return to arms. Some divisions were identified within the Hizbul since its leadership in India was keen on talks while the leaders based in Pakistan had firmly rejected the idea of talks. Finally, the Indian leadership of Hizbul backed down and insisted on including Pakistan in the negotiations with the Indian government, a condition that India firmly rejected. An impassed ensued as India had stated clearly that it would not participate in discussions with Pakistan until it stopped aiding militancy in Jammu and Kashmir.

India Review 2016 Page 30 of 408 pages India

The end of peace talks meant a return to war in the state and the Indian security forces continued to fight the militants for almost three months. In November 2000, India shifted its strategy by announcing that during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Indian security forces would maintain a unilateral cease-fire in their operations against the militants in the state. The cease-fire was welcomed by the international community, including the United States and the European Union, who also called upon the militants to reciprocate and hold off their own attacks. This call was rejected by the militants who saw an opportunity to score significant victories against the security forces. The cease-fire, which was initially planned for one month, was extended by the Indian government on a monthly basis until May 2001. The militants, however, continued with their operations and inflicted several casualties all over the state.

In May 2001, the government suddenly reversed its earlier stance. It called off the cease-fire, saying that a unilateral move, not reciprocated by the militants, served little purpose. While the calling off of the cease-fire was not a total surprise, the accompanying announcement certainly was not anticipated. India expressed the desire to invite Pakistan's General Pervez Musharraf for talks in New Delhi. Pakistan accepted the offer and the summit was scheduled for July 14-16, 2001, in New Delhi. The summit was hailed by the international community, which hoped that it would mark the beginning of a peace process.

The international community watched with great interest the developments leading up to a summit in Agra and the outcome itself. Despite the inevitable build-up of expectations around the summit, Indian leaders were cautious about the possible outcome of the meeting. In the days leading to the summit, the contrast between the vastly different positions of India and Pakistan became increasingly apparent.

The main source of contention between India and Pakistan during the summit focused on the contentious problem of Jammu and Kashmir, which has been responsible for on-going conflict between the two countries. Pervez Musharraf said that unless the two sides found a solution to Jammu and Kashmir, the relations between them could not improve. India, on the other hand, maintained that Jammu and Kashmir constituted a very difficult issue and that as no quick resolution was in sight, the two countries should address other issues and improve bilateral relations in the fields of trade, facilitating movement of people between the two countries and to reduce tension on the border. India said that these improvements would go a long way in removing tension between the two countries and lead to building of confidence between them.

Ultimately, the two positions were far too divergent for the Agra summit to yield any significant results. The two sides were also unable to agree on a joint declaration. Though the failure of the summit did not surprise anyone, the international community was worried that it would lead to an escalation of tension in the region. India continued to blame Pakistan for fomenting terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir, a charge denied by Islamabad, which said that it extends only moral and

India Review 2016 Page 31 of 408 pages India political support to the "freedom fighters" in Jammu and Kashmir.

Then, on Dec. 13, 2001, in the most audacious act of violence to date, a group of terrorists launched an attack on the Indian Parliament House in New Delhi. In the ensuing gun battle, 14 persons, including all the terrorists, were killed. The five terrorists, traveling in a stolen car, breached the massive security cordon around the Parliament House building and reached the last ring of security. When they were intercepted by the security forces, the terrorists jumped out of the cars and tried to reach the Parliament building, firing from their AK-47 rifles and lobbying grenades. None of the terrorists were able to make it to the building and were ultimately killed in the battle, which also claimed the lives of seven Delhi policemen and two security personnel of the Parliament.

An estimated 200 MPs, plus visitors and media personnel, were believed to be in the complex when the attack broke out. Home Minister Advani and other senior ministers were moved to a secure location within the Parliament complex in the immediate aftermath of the attack. The army was called in and Black Cat commandos and police personnel were rushed to the spot. Security was also enhanced at the residences of the prime minister, home minister and the leader of the opposition. The federal government also asked the state governments to beef up security at key installations and keep a close vigil on potential terrorist activities.

The attack horrified the nation as a whole, as well as the international community, which was already reeling from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. Investigators said that the terrorists planned to blow up the entire building as their car was laden with explosives. The car bomb, however, failed to detonate and this forced the terrorists to come out of the car. A similar attack carried out on the Jammu and Kashmir legislature building in Srinagar in October 2001 claimed 40 lives and caused widespread damage to the building.

The Indian government accused two Pakistan-based terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e- Mohammad for the attack. Jaish-e-Mohammad had earlier claimed responsibility for the Srinagar attack, but later retracted.

In a sharp speech, soon after the attack, India's Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee vowed a "strong reaction to the attack on the most important institution of the world's largest democracy." Vajpayee accused Pakistan of giving refuge to the two groups and threatened a strong response if Pakistan did not cooperate by shutting down all terrorist bases on its soil. He asked Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf to shut down the camps, arrest their leaders and freeze their assets. The speech led to heightened tensions between the two countries and a threat of war once again loomed large over the highly unstable Indo-Pak border. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, caught in a bind, said that there was no evidence that the two groups had been involved in the attack and said that Pakistan would actively protect itself in case of any precipitate action by India.

India Review 2016 Page 32 of 408 pages India

Despite appeals of calm and restraint by all the major world powers, including the United States, tension continued to mount between the two neighbors. Pakistan refused to accept Indian claims that the two organizations had been involved in the attack on the Parliament. Pakistan suggested a joint investigation of the attack, which met with an outright rejection by India. India's position was somewhat vindicated when the United States placed the two militant organizations on its list of terrorist organizations and urged all the countries to freeze their assets and clamp down on their activities. Although Pakistan said it would act against the two organizations, India was not convinced.

As tensions mounted, Pakistan cancelled leave for troops and recalled all its military personnel on leave as part of a state of high alert that was declared soon after the attack on the Indian Parliament. Pakistan also re-deployed its troops on the Line-of-Control in Jammu and Kashmir. These troops had been unilaterally withdrawn in 2000 as a gesture aimed at normalization of relations with India.

The situation was aggravated as both countries began massing their troops along the international border in a show of strength. The cross border firing, which is normally restricted to the most contentious parts of the disputed Jammu and Kashmir state, soon spread and intensified, leading to dozens of deaths on both the sides. As tensions continued to mount, hundreds of civilians living along the border began to flee the area, partly due to the intense shelling of the border areas by the artillery on both sides of the border.

As the impasse on the political front continued, India decided to recall its high commissioner (ambassador) in Islamabad, saying that the bilateral relations had reached an all-time low following Islamabad's refusal to initiate action against the terrorist groups. In another significant scaling down of bilateral relations, India also decided to shut down train and bus services between the two countries. The services had been initiated in 1999 following the visit of Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to Pakistan. The Pakistan government criticized the Indian decision to recall the high commissioner saying that diplomatic channels needed to be kept open, especially during times of crises. It said it would not take any retaliatory measures, and keep its mission in New Delhi at full level.

On Dec. 25, 2001, in an attempt to placate India, the Pakistan government placed Masood Azhar, leader of Jaish-e-Mohammad, under preventive detention for a few days. The Indian leadership was, however, not sufficiently impressed and demanded that Pakistan take real and meaningful action against the terrorist groups working on its soil. The war clouds continued to hover over the region, though most analysts believed that neither side would go all the way to start a war for two main reasons: (1) the aggressor would quickly lose international support; (2) the respective economies of India and Pakistan were not strong enough to support the huge costs of a war.

India Review 2016 Page 33 of 408 pages India

Developments in 2002

Regardless of the pragmatic considerations detailed above, the pressure from the international community continued to build. British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced a hurriedly organized visit to India in the first week of January 2002. The visit was clearly organized in order try to calm the nerves in New Delhi and Islamabad. Later, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell also visited the sub-continent and encouraged restraint from both India and Pakistan. Cross-border terrorism and the conflict over Kashmir and Jammu, however, continued to present major obstacles to rapprochement between these two countries. As such, both countries continued to escalate the deployment of troops along their borders.

Tensions were not limited to the geopolitical realm. Conflicts between Hindus and Muslims on the domestic front also threatened the peace in India. On Feb. 27, 2002, a Muslim mob attacked a train carrying Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) activists who were returning from the disputed holy site of Ayodhya. The train was set on fire while it was passing through the town of Godhra, causing several train carriages to be destroyed and burning victims (mostly Hindu VHP supporters) terribly, and in many cases, beyond recognition. In total, 58 people, most of them Hindu activists, had been killed. In the aftermath of the train attack, 21 Muslim men were arrested in the city of Godhra, while about 700 were arrested across the state. Meanwhile 26 cities were placed under curfew, and streets, businesses and schools across the state were closed.

The holy site in Ayodhya was under dispute because the VHP Hindu activist group planned to build a temple in the same spot where a 16th century mosque was destroyed in Hindu-Muslim communal violence back in 1992. Observers feared that the scenario would spark a repeat of nationwide communal violence that occurred when the mosque was destroyed a decade ago.

On Feb. 28, 2002, a day after the train massacre, Hindu-Muslim communal violence erupted in the state of Gujarat, leaving several hundred people dead. In Ahmedabad, the state's largest city, Hindu mobs allegedly attacked Muslims, presumably to avenge the train attack the previous day. In these "revenge" attacks, several scores of Muslims were burned alive. Several more people were shot by police in the resulting chaos. The violence spread in the following days across the state and exacted a death toll in the thousands. Included in the list of casualties are a former Congress member of parliament, Ahsan Jafri, and his family, whose house was burned by a Hindu mob.

Political leaders in India condemned both sets of attacks, and asked the VHP not to continue their plans to construct a temple on the site in Ayodhya, fearing that such provacative moves will only serve to exacerbate rising tensions. The VHP, however, insisted that it would begin construction of the temple in March, however that timeline was postponed pending Supreme Court judgement on the issue, as well as rising public demands that the issue of the site be resolved amicably between all interested parties. Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, cancelled his trip to

India Review 2016 Page 34 of 408 pages India a Commonwealth summit to be held in Australia, and called for restraint, calm and an end to communal violence. The situation placed the Prime Minister in vortex of competing interests. While many opposition and coalition forces in government wanted him to prevent the escalation of violence, he was also expected to work with Hindu hardline groups, such as the VHP, who were helpful in consolidating his power. Such Hindu hardline groups were unlikely to respond to calls for moderation and restraint.

Thus, questions were raised about the lack of effectiveness and responsiveness on the part of the BJP government in dealing with the horrendous situation. Observers noted there was a marked delay before the Indian army was called in to dispel the violence and indeed, to date, the deployment of the army in this regard has been scant in the most volatile areas of India. Policemen and other officials have also been implicated in the violence, as many observers have stated that these officials watched as looting and killing ensued, taking no action to quell or control the situation.

Although right-wing Hindu and nationalist voices suggested that the violence was simply an unchoreographed reaction to the train massacre, some independent international analysts and human rights groups believed that the government of the state of Gujarat was complicit in mass violence against Muslims. In the midst of these criticisms, the government, led by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, refused to remove Gujarat's Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, a member of the Prime Minister's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. Moti was accused by domestic and international observers of tacitly supporting the murder of hundreds of Muslims. India's opposition parties walked out of the Lok Sabha and marched to the presidential palace in protest over the inaction by the government as well as various law enforcement officials and agencies. Then, on May 6, 2002, the government expressed support for a measure in the upper house of the Indian parliament establishing federal intervention in Gujarat, however, it remained steadfast in its refusal to remove Moti from office.

It would appear that the BJP government went from being in a difficult position in the aftermath of the Godhra attacks, when it was asking for restraint on the part of the Indian public and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) activists, to later being on the defensive for its own inaction as communal violence escalated at a disturbing rate.

Meanwhile, tensions between India and Pakistan increased in the last week of February 2002, as Pakistani ground troops almost shot down an air force AN-32 transport aircraft carrying Air Marshal V K Bhatia, commander-in-chief of the Western Air Command, as he was inspecting the Indian troops near Kargil in Kashmir. The plane made a forced landing at Leh Air base. Observers speculate that Bhatia escaped certain death as in this case, the Pakistani troops used only anti- aircraft guns and not US-made stinger missiles, as was the norm. The Indian military launched an inquiry regarding the altitude of plane's flight and its proximity to the border.

India Review 2016 Page 35 of 408 pages India

In early May 2002, an attack on an army camp in Indian-administered Kashmir left 30 people dead and a further, marked increase in tension between India and Pakistan. The two countries deployed around a million troops along their respective borders, as well as the Line of Control that divides Kashmir. In May 2002, both sides exchanged heavy artillery, shelling, and machine-gun fire across the Line of Control. There were growing fears that a small spark could cause a major conflict to erupt. Indeed, Pakistan also launched three short-range nuclear ballistic missile tests.

Pakistan's President Musharraf offered a speech, in conjunction with the missile tests. In response, India's officials accused Pakistan of political posturing and military brinkmanship, however, they insisted that India would not initiate a nuclear war. Indian officials have stated that India is committed to its policy of no "first use" of nuclear weapons. For its part, India described Pakistan as the "epicenter of international terrorism." In this regard, India charged that Pakistan provides state support for the training of Islamic militant groups (including support for terrorist training camps), which they believe are responsible for a series of recent attacks on Indian targets. Pakistan denied these charges, stating that it simply provides "moral support" to various groups seeking self- determination for the people of the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir.

In early June 2002, as the situation between the two nuclear powers -- India and Pakistan -- heated up, there were conflicting signals from India about whether or not it would resort to war. Some reports suggested that officials were attempting to minimize the impression that war between the two countries was imminent. Deputy Foreign Minister Omar Abdullah, however, rejected any shift in India's hardline position on Kashmir, saying it would deal with cross-border terrorism in whatever way deemed necessary.

International efforts to quell the tension were concentrated on the regional security summit in Kazakhstan. With Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee both attending the same conference, it was hoped that possible face-to-face talks would facilitate a breakthrough between the two countries. Russian authorities played a key role in trying to achieve this end. India, nevertheless, remained skeptical about any resolution until cross-border terrorism, which it claims to be sponsored by the Pakistani state, is halted. In this regard, India reportedly intercepted some communication from militant Islamic groups suggesting that Pakistan had, indeed, ordered a halt in infiltration at the Line of Control. This admission from India was regarded as a hopeful step in the direction of rapprochement, until remarks from the Foreign Minister were uttered suggesting no relaxation of India's position.

Meanwhile, United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with officials from both countries in an effort to diffuse tensions; his visit followed the visit of the United Kingdom's Jack Straw to the region. United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Richard Armitage visited a week later, on the heels of Rumsfeld. As well, foreigners were urged to leave India; a prior warning was already issued for Pakistan.

India Review 2016 Page 36 of 408 pages India

Just after Armitage's visit to the region and his speculation that tensions were easing between the two countries, an unmanned Indian spy plane in Pakistani airspace was shot down. A Pakistani representative expressed grave concern to officials in the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and also prostested the violation of Pakistani airspace. The incident occurred around the same time as more civilians and soldiers were killed by Pakistani troops in the Kashmir region. Indian officials stated that Pakistani troops opened fire in the area of Kargil, where a previous battle had occurred in 1999. More than 50 people died in the 10-day period leading up to the latest gunfire in Kargil. Indian officials also arrested a Kashmiri separatist, thus incurring protests by Pakistan.

The gravity of the situation appeared to have sparked a breakthrough between India and Pakistan in the second week of June 2002. In an optimistic move, Russian military experts declared that they did not believe India and Pakistan would actually use nuclear weapons against each other. Not only was it unlikely that such weapons would be in combat-ready condition, but the Russians asserted the view that the deleterious effect on the developing economies of both countries was not something that either party would likely risk.

On June 10, 2002, India reiterated a previously-stated view that there was a quantifiable reduction in levels of infiltration of Pakistani militants across the Line of Control into Kashmir. The acknowledgement occurred almost simultaneously with reductions of the levels of cross-border shelling and violence. In another measure toward de-escalation, India also announced it was lifting a flight ban on commercial Pakistani aircraft, which had been in effect since the attacks on the Indian parliament six months before.

In July 2002, tensions between India and Pakistan reignited after an attack on a village in Kashmir that left 27 people dead and more than 30 people injured. Preliminary investigations suggest that the same group operating from Pakistan which carried out the attacks on the Indian parliament several months ago, Lashkar-e-Taiba, may be responsible. Another Islamic militant group, Jaish-e- Mohammad, had also been implicated. The attacks occurred just before a scheduled visit from United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, and United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, whose respective trips to the region are intended to quell tensions over the Indian-ruled territory of Kashmir, which is claimed by Pakistan. State elections were scheduled for later in the year and although India promised some sort of retaliatory measures for the attacks, which they have branded as "pure terrorism," some Indian officials also noted that attention -- for the moment -- would be better spent on the election.

In September 2002, amidst sporadic bouts of violence in the troubled Indian-administered region of Kashmir, polling stations opened for the four-day election. Kashmir's main separatist parties boycotted the election, while Islamic militant and separatist groups stated they would disrupt the event; they have also warned that anyone participating in the election would be killed. On the first of the four polling days, five militant separatists were killed in the district of Poonch during clashes with the Indian army. Earlier, a policeman had been killed in the same region and another

India Review 2016 Page 37 of 408 pages India policeman was fired on by rockets elsewhere. Meanwhile, an attempt to murder the state's tourism minister was almost accomplished when her vehicles hit a landmine close to her home in southern Kashmir, and then gunmen ambushed her convoy. The minister survived the attack, however, two members of her security detail were killed. The election itself garnered mixed voting, with higher turnout levels in certain areas.

In aggregate, there were higher voter turnout levels than in past elections and many observers hoped this development signaled a fresh beginning for Kashmir. Fears of violence and a history of irregularities and voter-rigging, however, apparently kept the turnout levels low in border regions. New electronic polling equipment was intended to allay fears about voter fraud, while the election itself was attended by a cadre of foreign diplomats and observers.

The tension between India and Pakistan over Kashmir continued to simmer. While India accused Pakistan of using terror and militant separatists to sabotage the election, Pakistan dismissed the allegations along with the election itself, which it described as a farcical endeavor. As bilateral tensions escalated, both India and Pakistan again tested nuclear missiles in early October 2002.

Finally released in mid-October 2002, the election results proved to be inconclusive. Members of the Congress Party and the regional People's Democratic Party together won 36 seats in the 87- member assembly and intended to meet in Srinagar for discussions. Meanwhile, the ruling National Conference won only 28 seats.

Elsewhere in India, gunmen stormed a Hindu temple in the western state of Gudjarat, killing 25 people. Ironically, the temple belonged to the Swaminarayan movement -- a sect within Hinduism, which teaches both practical spirituality and religious tolerance.

Meanwhile, on Sept. 29, 2002, there were clashes between militant Muslims and police in the city of Bangalore resulting in the deaths of five militants and injuries to 13 policemen. Officials noted that the men who were killed were wanted in connection with the bombing of the office of a Hindu organization. Following this development, India's Prime Minister again reiterated his belief that Pakistan must be made accountable for many of these episodes of violence, which were described as acts of terrorism.

Developments in 2003

In early 2003, with an imbroglio brewing over the funding of Kashmiri separatist groups, senior diplomatic corps from both India and Pakistan returned to their respective countries. The contretemps occurred when the Indian police arrested two members of Hurriyat, a Kashmiri separatist group, for financing militant terrorists. The police asserted that the finances had been provided by the acting Pakistani High Commissioner, Jalil Abbas Jilani, and funneled from India's

India Review 2016 Page 38 of 408 pages India capital city of Delhi to separatists in Indian-administered Kashmir. The revelation resulted in Jilani's expulsion. For his part, Jilani claimed that the charges were simply measures aimed at intimidating Pakistan's diplomatic corps in India.

Soon thereafter, India's acting High Commissioner, Sudhir Vyas, left the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, having been expelled for "actions unbecoming of their status." The phrase is diplomatic terminology for charges of spying. The details of the spying charges are yet unknown, however, most observers assume that the expulsions of Vyas, as well as four other Indian diplomats, were levied in response to the expulsion of Jilani from India.

Later, an accusation by India's Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee about Pakistani support for terrorism exacerbated deteriorating relations. Specifically, Vajpayee declared that Pakistan had been involved in the dubious logic of making a distinction between terrorism and freedom struggles where no such difference existed. Vajpayee's statements were illustrative of an ongoing outcry by India's government that Pakistan has been tacitly supporting terrorism, especially in relation to the administration and control of Kashmir.

Although new diplomatic personnel for both countries were approved to replace the expelled diplomatic staffers, the ever-brewing fight over Kashmir raised the specter of nuclear conflict between these two nuclear neighbors on the Indian subcontinent.

Despite a spate of fresh violence in Indian-administered Kashmir by militant Islamists, there appeared to be a thawing of relations between India and Pakistan by the spring of 2003.

First, the hardliner Indian Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, addressed the public in Kashmir's summer capital of Srinagar and expressed the view that dialogue was necessary for building peace in Kashmir. The government in Delhi also said it was interested in peace talks; however, it would only consider talks with Islamabad if and when Pakistan relinquished support for militant Islamic separatists fighting against Indian-rule of Kashmir. Pakistan's government expressed gratitude for the gesture of openness but maintained the Pakistani position on Kashmir. Then, in a positive breakthrough, however, at the end of April 2003, Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee spoke with his Pakistani counterpart, Prime Minister Mir Zafarulla Khan Jamali, about measures aimed at improving bilateral relations. The two considered economic cooperation, cultural visits and the resumption of civil aviation service across the border, and Jamali invited Vajpayee to Islamabad. Soon thereafter, India and Pakistan said they would re-establish diplomatic relations.

Then, Pakistan shockingly stated it would be prepared to denuclearize its arsenal if India would do likewise. Because India is believed to possess nuclear weapons not only because of ongoing conflict with Pakistan but also as a deterrent against China, it is unlikely that mutual abandonment of nuclear arsenals will take place. Nevertheless, the suggestion was regarded as a diplomatic shift of sorts.

India Review 2016 Page 39 of 408 pages India

United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was due to visit Islamabad and Delhi; discussions with the United States envoy and the governments of both countries were to focus on possible bilateral dialogue and diffusing tensions. For its part, though, India's Prime Minister Vajpayee insisted that there would be no role for a third party in resolving the Kashmir dispute. Following on this theme, in June 2003, the Indian government rejected a call by the Pakistani leadership for a "roadmap for peace" reminiscent of the one advocated by the United States government in the Middle East. The Indian government in Delhi expressly said that it would never accept outside mediation and that there was no place for a third party at the negotiating table.

On another front, in June 2003, India reached agreement with China over status of Tibet and Sikkim, respectively. The agreement not only attempted to resolve the territorial issues associated with the areas in question, but also established a landmark cross-border trade agreement. Specifically, India formally recognized the Tibetan autonomous region as part of the People's Republic of China, while China, agreed to border trade through the north-east Indian state of Sikkim. The trade agreement effectively demonstrated Beijing's recognition of India's claim over that area. In sum, the agreement functioned to boost bilateral relations between the two Asian countries, which have been plagued by dismal relations over problematic border issues. Indeed, there have been up to fifteen rounds of discussions in the last two decades.

India's recognition of Tibet did not affect the position of the exiled leadership of the region. The spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, who lives in the Indian town of Dharamsala, said he still wished to pursue talks with China regarding Tibet's independence. Also notable is the fact that the Indian government has made a subtle distinction between the Tibet autonomous region and the whole of Tibet. The Tibet autonomous region, west of the Yangtze river and south of the Kunlun mountains is the only area recognized by modern-day China as contemporary Tibet. It is only a third of the size of pre-1950 Tibet, which was invaded by China and has been absorbed into nearby Chinese provinces.

In August 2003, over 50 people were killed and more than 130 were injured when two car bombs exploded in India's main commercial city, Bombay (Mumbai). One car bomb exploded at the Gateway of India, just in front of the luxury Taj Mahal hotel. The second car bomb exploded at the Zaveri Bazaar, a gold and jewelry market close to the Momba Devi temple in the center of the city. Although the Indian government did not identity of the group believed to have carried out the attacks, there were suggestions that a militant Islamic student group may have been responsible. Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) is a group aligned with the Pakistan-based militant Islamic group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which responsible for the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament in 2001 (discussed above). SIMI has also been mentioned in connection with a number of other attacks in Bombay (Mumbai) within the last year. India's Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani said that the previous attacks had been carried out by SIMI, with support from Lashkar-e- Taiba. The two car bombings occurred just as a report was being released regarding the

India Review 2016 Page 40 of 408 pages India controversial site of a religious shrine at Ayodhya (also discussed above).

In late 2003, India accepted a unilateral ceasefire offer from Pakistan. The ceasefire along the informal Indo-Pak border, or Line of Control (LoC), marked the first time in 14 years that the exchange of fire ceased. Despite the adoption of the ceasefire, India warned that the truce was a fragile one because of the continued threat of Islamic militants from Pakistan fighting against Indian rule of Kashmir.

Still, in a discussion with former United States President Bill Clinton, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said he hoped the progress in relations with India would result in direct dialogue between the two countries. Earlier, the Pakistani leader told a United States Congressional delegation, which included Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, that a "composite dialogue" was essential to settling the issues facing the two countries. In this regard, the Pakistani government invited Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to attend a regional summit in Islamabad.

The Start of 2004

Earlier in the year (prior to the election), India's Prime Minister Vajpayee said he wished to meet with the leadership of Pakistan early in 2004. Direct bilateral talks took place last in July 2001. Such talks, indeed, took place at the start of 2004 and marked a progressive step toward peace as India acknowledged Pakistan's efforts in trying to keep militants from crossing the LoC and as Pakistan agreed not to begin any composite dialogue on the basis of difficult issues, such as the status of Kashmir.

Elections of 2004: The Congress Party Returns to Power

In March 2004, media reports suggested that Rahul Gandhi, son of the assassinated former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, would stand in India's parliamentary elections in April. Gandhi represented the main opposition Congress Party, which was at the time led by his mother Sonia Gandhi.

In May, India completed its general elections. Following India's general elections, results showed a plurality of votes for Sonia Gandhi's Congress Party over Prime Minister Vajpayee's Bharatiya Janata Party (BHP). Actual results were as follows: BJP and allies: 179seats; Congress Party and allies: 212 seats; Others: 133 seats.

Because the Congress Party did not win an outright majority, a coalition government with allied parties would have to be formed. Several communist parties, for example, had not concluded whether or not they want to join the new government or simply support it. Regardless, they may

India Review 2016 Page 41 of 408 pages India well have held the balance of power in India's government formation process.

Meanwhile, the allies of the Congress Party in parliament voted unanimously to support Sonia Gandhi as the next prime minister. In this way, Italian-born Sonia Gandhi -- wife of the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and daughter-in-law of the famed Prime Minister Indira Gandhi - - was to be inaugurated within days. Such an outcome fueled discussions of a continued Nehru- Gandhi legacy in Indian politics, which had been in effect since the time of independence.

In an unexpected development, however, following outrage by the outgoing Hindu nationalist BHP government about the prospect of a foreign-born leader, Sonia Gandhi announced that she "humbly declined" to be the next prime minister of India. It was unknown as to whether or not she would actually stand by that decision or whom she would nominate for the post instead. Insiders expressed the view that Manmohan Singh, the mastermind of India's economic liberalization plan during the last Congress-led government in the 1990s, might be her first choice. Indeed, Singh went on to be designated for the role of prime minister. In terms of policy, the Congress Party was expected to continue steps toward rapprochement with Pakistan.

Political Developments of 2004 (post-election)

In May 2004, an attack on a bus in Kashmir involving a landmine left 33 people dead. The bus had been transporting Indian soldiers and their relatives. The incident underscored the reality that although a movement toward rapprochement with Pakistan had ensued, the issue of Kashmir has continued to be a serious one. Moreover, militants were unlikely to embrace diplomatic overtures undertaken by those in official political power and governance.

In mid-2004, the new government of India was faced with a conundrum when the opposition demanded that two cabinet ministers be sacked. The opposition claimed that the two ministers were unfit for office. The parliament was closed for two days as a result of the controversy.

In September 2004, the peace process between India and Pakistan appeared to be making some much-lauded progress. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf met in New York on the sidelines of the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. Reports say the talks went well with both leaders voicing a desire to continue working together.

Political Developments in 2005

In early 2005, even as India and Pakistan were on the road to constructive dialogue, relations between India and the United States suffered a setback. At issue was the decision by the United States to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan. Faced with India's anger at this decision, the United

India Review 2016 Page 42 of 408 pages India

States explained it was selling the jets to India's rival to thank Pakistan for its help with the war on terror. The United States offered to sell combat aircraft to India as well. Although India said it would consider the offer, it was not entirely assuaged. Indeed, India pointed to an ideological inconsistency on the part of the United States in regards to Pakistan's involvement in the unregulated spread of nuclear technology. Notably, a Pakistani nuclear scientist, Dr. Khan, is believed to have supplied nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

In May 2005, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said that a resolution to the Kashmir conflict was within reach. The Pakistani leader made this assertion at a meeting of South Asian parliamentarians in the capital city of Islamabad. President Musharraf also said that the Line of Control, which has separated Indian-administered and Pakistani-administered portions of Kashmir, had to be rendered irrelevant. He called for the demilitarization of the zone and said that Kashmiris should be accorded a high level of autonomy -- in line with the wishes of the people. In a concession to the government of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President Musharraf also said, "We do understand India's sensitivity over their secular credentials and therefore it [the solution] cannot be, maybe, on a religious basis. So therefore it needs to be on a regional basis, on a peoples' basis." In the past, Pakistan has demanded that the future of Kashmir be determined along religious lines.

In the first week of August 2005, three people were killed and nine others injured when a bomb exploded at a crowded market in the north-eastern Indian state of Assam. The explosion occurred in the town of Boko, just west of the state capital of Guwahati. Earlier, a massive explosion along a pipeline at Chellakapar in Assam's northern Sibsagar district had caused a suspension of oil supplies to refineries. Officials said they suspected separatist rebels, the United Liberation Front of Assam (Ulfa), of carrying out the attacks. Efforts to commence talks between the Indian government and Ulfa have not progressed fruitfully since the government in Delhi refused to release 10 rebel leaders.

In October 2005, a series of three bomb attacks left close to 60 people dead and over 200 injured in India's capital city of New Dehli. Two simultaneous explosions took place in the Sarojini Nagar market in the south and at a central market near the neighborhood of Paharganj. A third explosion took place moments later in the area of Govindpuri, possibly as a result of a bus bomb. The majority of the casualties appeared to have been at the Sarojini Nagar market, although there were a number of casualties also in Paharganj, located close to a major railway station frequented by Western travelers. Early reports indicated few casualties at the Govindpuri bus explosion.

The actual attacks ensued around sunset just ahead of the Hindu festival of lights, known as Diwali, and the Muslim celebration of Eid. Many people were in the streets around market areas shopping in anticipation of the two religious observances.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh blamed the attacks on terrorists and warned that he would not

India Review 2016 Page 43 of 408 pages India tolerate militant violence. During a televised address, he said: "These are dastardly acts of terrorism. We are resolute in our commitment to fighting terrorism in all forms." Meanwhile, India's Home Ministry held an emergency meeting of both security and intelligence officials.

For its part, Pakistan condemned the attacks. A statement from the Pakistani Foreign Ministry read as follows: "Pakistan strongly condemns the terrorist attacks in Delhi, which have resulted in the loss of a number of innocent lives. The attack in a crowded market place is a criminal act of terrorism."

The Indian security authorities were reportedly investigating the attacks and speculated that one group, possibly Islamic militants, might be responsible for all three. Indeed, a group by the name of Inqilabi claimed responsibility but the police were trying to determine the veracity of the claim.

In late 2005, a mass grave was discovered by residents of the village of Pandarwada in the Indian state of Gujarat. Human rights activists have suggested that the grave was filled with the remains of thousands of Muslims who were killed during the Gujarat riots of 2002. Police officials, however, said that it was unknown as to origins of the remains in the the grave. They did not foreclose the possibility that an older graveyard had been uncovered. A judicial inquiry into the riots of 2002 has been ongoing for some time.

A cabinet minister, Natwar Singh, announced in early December 2005 that he was resigning following the publication of allegations that he and his son, Jagat Singh, benefited from the United Nation's controversial "oil-for-food" program in Iraq. Singh (no relation to Prime Minister Singh) had been named as a non-contractual beneficiary in an official report by the United Nations on the program and had lost his Foreign Ministry portfolio as the situation gained publicity. Singh had stayed on within the cabinet without a portfolio for a period; however, by early December 2005, the opposition had launched a furious campaign to have him removed from office.

Singh's resignation came with a strong assertion that he had done nothing wrong and in a somewhat forced fashion as he said that to voluntarily resign would be akin to admitting guilt. Outside his official residence in the capital city of Delhi, he explained, "I am resigning from the cabinet even though I have not violated any laws in letter or spirit. I don't wish to be an excuse for the opposition to stall parliament." Singh's son, who was also alleged to have benefited from the controversial program, asserted that both he and his father were ready to be investigated. He also warned that they would not be scapegoats. The Indian government ordered a judicial investigation into the matter.

Special Entry: South Asian Earthquake in 2005

An earthquake struck South Asia at 3:50 AM (GMT) on Oct. 8, 2005, causing massive

India Review 2016 Page 44 of 408 pages India devastation. The epicenter of the earthquake was Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, although the tremor was felt across Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province, and as far as New Delhi in India to the east and Kabul in Afghanistan to the west. The earthquake, which measured 7.6 in magnitude, was reported to have been one of the strongest to ever hit the region. The death toll was anticipated to be over 20,000, however, there was speculation that it could reach beyond that.

Pakistan bore the vast majority of the death and destruction from the earthquake. Across the Line of Control in Indian-administered Kashmir, the death toll from the earthquake was estimated to be around 600. The Chief Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir, Vijay Bakaya, surmised that the death toll would likely increase. Among the dead in the disputed Kashmir region of the Himalayas were several soldiers who had been killed in a landslide. Large-scale landslides presented a major challenge for those trying to carry out rescue efforts as the main highway connecting Srinigar to the rest of India was blocked as a consequence.

The town of Kupwara, located in close proximity to the Line of Control, was very badly hit. Between 250 and 300 bodies were discovered at the site. Hundreds of people were also feared trapped as a result of landslides. The area of Uri, located nearby, suffered a death toll over 100. Close to 1,000 people were reported to have been injured, while the vast majority of homes were destroyed. Residents, now made homeless by the earthquake, were forced to roam outdoors with nowhere to go.

The border districts of Baramullah and Poonch also suffered terrible damage. Within Poonch, a 200-year-old fort called Moti Mahal collapsed. In the Indian state of Punjab collapsed buildings, including homes and shops, led rescuers to frantically search for survivors among the rubble. The border district of Gurdaspur also experienced several casualties.

In Amritsar and Delhi, buildings were also damanged. The tremor was felt across India in the provinces of Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.

Indian authorities said that its priority was to ensure that urgent supplies of food, medicine, blankets, tents and other aid and supplies were transported to remote areas affected by the earthquake. As has been the case in Pakistan, helicopters have been needed to reach remote areas for the purpose of rescue and relief efforts. Meanwhile, temporary medical camps were established to treat those wounded. Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee reportedly toured the areas hit by the earthquake accompanied by the leader of India's governing Congress party, Sonia Gandhi. Mrs. Gandhi promised that both financial and medical assistance would be provided to those affected, however, villages in hard-hit areas, such as Uri, complained bitterly that government officials and journalists were passing by without stopping to take note of the situation or to offer assistance.

India Review 2016 Page 45 of 408 pages India

Political Developments in 2006

On his first visit to India in early March 2006, United States President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh forged a nuclear accord. In the deal, India would have access to civil nuclear technology from the United States in return for opening its nuclear facilities to inspection. The United States also agreed to drop its objections to a proposed pipeline, which would supply gas from Iran to India via Pakistan. Prime Minister Singh noted that India's military and civilian nuclear facilities would be separated, with 14 of the 22 nuclear facilities being classified for civilian use, in order to facilitate the requisite inspections process. The Indian leader praised the deal saying, "We made history today."

The deal came on the heels of a similar agreement forged between India and France. India has been eager to craft productive agreements with other countries because of its growing population and its concomitant need for increased energy supplies. While only 3 percent of India's electricity has been derived from nuclear power in recent years, up to 25 percent of the country's electricity is expected to come from nuclear power by 2050. According to the Uranium Information Center, India has limited coal and uranium reserves, however, its substantial thorium reserves could potentially fuel a nuclear power program on an extended basis.

Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), hailed the accord saying that India was "an important partner in the non-proliferation regime." For India, the agreement held great significance as it effectively ended several years of international isolation due to its nuclear policy. Within India, however, there is residual opposition to the deal by adherents to India's long-standing tradition of non-alignment - a notion they believe has been undermined by closer ties with the United States.

Like his Indian counterpart, President Bush also characterized the agreement as "historic," but warned that its actualization would depend upon ratification by the United States Congress. In that legislative body, it was expected that there might be objections to the deal because India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Supporters of the NPT have objected to the fact that the deal sidesteps the existence of India's nuclear weapons program. Meanwhile, other critics have noted that the deal prevents consistency on the matter of nuclear proliferation, pointing to Washington's opposition to Iran's nuclear program.

In anticipation of such criticism, Bush said, "Congress has got to understand that it's in our economic interests that India have a civilian nuclear power industry to help take the pressure off the global demand for energy." Bush also highlighted growing bilateral trade between India and the United States, as well as cooperation against terrorism. Additionally, he called for resolution between India and Pakistan regarding the conflict over Kashmir.

India Review 2016 Page 46 of 408 pages India

Bush's visit to India was opposed by various factions, including communist parties and Islamic groups. Still, the opposition to his presence in India was limited when compared with the mass demonstrations and violence in Pakistan, preceding Bush's arrival in that country. Ahead of his arrival in Pakistan, a bomb blast close to the United States Consulate in Karachi killed a number of persons, including a United States diplomat.

Amidst heavy security, Bush arrived in Pakistan for a 24-hour visit. He met with President Pervez Musharraf and praised the Pakistani leader for his assistance with the global fight against terrorism following the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. Bush also said that more work was needed in the fight against the terrorist network, al-Qaida. While Musharraf called for further cooperation between Pakistan and the United States, Bush's attention focused on an affirmation of the existing strategic partnership between the his country and Pakistan in the fight against terrorism. With no indication that Bush would offer Pakistan a similar type of accord as was forged with India, there was an indignant outcry. Bush responded saying, "Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and different histories... As we proceed forward, our strategy will take in those well-known differences."

On March 7, 2006, three bomb blasts hit the northen Indian city of Varanasi. The explosions -- one at the Sankot Mochan Hindu temple and two at the main railway station -- left scores of casualties. In addition to the three explosions, police said that another two bombs had been defused -- one on the banks of the Ganges River and the other at a city market.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh condemned what appeared to be terrorist attacks and appealed for calm. The security team from his cabinet was set to hold an emergency meeting regarding the attacks. As well, various cities across India, including the capital city of Delhi, were placed on high alert.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility. Still, Varanasi has come to be known as the religious center for Hinduism attracting both Hindu worshippers as well as foreign tourists. The city, located in the state of Uttar Pradesh, has certainly been the locus of religious violence over the years. As such, there was some speculation that the attacks might have been carried out by anti-Western and/or Islamic militant factions. This suggestion has been spurred by the timing of the attacks, which occurred in the aftermath of the aforementioned visit to India by United States President Bush, and shortly after sectarian strife between Hindus and Muslims in the city of Lucknow.

A terrorist attack by militant Islamists left at least 35 Hindus dead in two separate attacks in Indian- controlled Kashmir. In one case in the mountainous district of Doda, the attackers dressed in police garb entered homes and forced people to convene in one house belonging to a village chieftain. Once the people were congregated there, they were shot at close range. The Chief

India Review 2016 Page 47 of 408 pages India

Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir, Vijay Bakaya, described the killings as a "massacre."

The terrorist attacks occurred ahead of a scheduled meeting between moderate separatist Kashmiri leaders and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. It was not known whether or not the timing of the attacks were linked with this meeting.

No group immediately claimed responsibility for the attacks, which broke a period of relative quiet in Kashmir. The most well-known militant Islamic groups, operating in Kashmir from across the border in Pakistan, condemned these particular killings. One spokesman for the militant group, Hizbul Mujahideen, said that killing civilians would not further the "liberation movement." Instead, he placed the blame on Indian intelligence agents. For its part, India placed the blame on Pakistan. India's Foreign Minister Anand Sharma said, "It is cross border terrorism. It's not the first time we are saying it."

The incident may well impinge on Indo-Pak relations, which in recent times, have been on a more positive track due to bilateral overtures. Control of Kashmir, however, has always been at the heart of the conflict between the two nuclear nations. At times, the conflict has resulted in war which has left thousands of people dead since 1989.

On July 11, 2006, a series of seven bombs exploded on trains in India's financial capital, Mumbai (also known as Bombay). Reports suggested approximately 200 people were believed to have been killed while around 500 were reportedly injured.

The bombs exploded on moving trains and at two stations during the evening rush hour along the densely-traversed Western Railway. The precise locations hit included areas aound Borivili, Khar, Jogeshwari, Matunga and Mira Road.

Following the detonation of the bombs and the ensuing explosions, observers on the scene remarked on the the powerful sound of the explosion. Observers also described the sight of people frantically jumping from the trains while bodies lay strewn across the train tracks among luggage and random personal items. The televsion media depicted the images of injured and bloodied commuters being carried through the wreckage to safety.

The sheer volume of casualties taxed the city's emergency services. With insufficient ambulances available, some of those injured had to reach hospitals on their own. Meanwhile, Mumbai's entire rail system -- one of the world's busiest -- was closed.

Indian security officials placed both Mumbai and the governmental capital of Dehli on high alert. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, characterized the apparent terrorism as a "shocking and cowardly attempt to spread a feeling of hatred." He also called on Indians to stay calm in the face of chaos. Pakistan was quick to condemn the attacks as "despicable" acts of terrorism. Other

India Review 2016 Page 48 of 408 pages India world leaders also issued their condemnation of the attacks and condolences to India.

Unfortunately, the train attacks were not the only incidences of terrorism that India had to deal with on July 11, 2006. Only hours before the seven bombs exploded in Mumbai, grenade attacks by Islamic militants in Kashmir's summer capital of Srinagar also left several people dead.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility in either of the two sets of attacks. While Kashmir's contested status suggested that extremist Islamists from Pakistan may have been responsible for the attack in Srinagar, two Islamic militant groups geared toward ending Indian administration of Kashmir denied responsibility for the train attacks in Mumbai. Meanwhile, it was quite clear that Mumbai had been selected by terrorists as the location for the train attacks because of its strategic importance as India's financial center. Nevertheless, a day after the attack, security officials said there were no clear indications about who might have been responsible for the train bombings. Instead, they deliberately stated that "terrorists," of the broad and unspecified variety, were to blame.

For his part, during a televised address a day after the attacks in Mumbai Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh thanked professionals and civilians who responded to the chaos for their "courage and humanism." The Indian leader also spoke of India's sense of national pride and dignity, vowing that "no-one can make India kneel."

Editor's Note: There have been a number of terrorist attacks in Mumbai in the last decade. In 1993, a series of bomb blasts killed 250 people. In 2002, an attack on a bus claimed two lives and a blast at a McDonald's fast food store resulted in 23 casualties. A year later, an attack at a marketplace resulted in injuries to 30 people. In 2003, an attack on a commuter train left 11 dead, a bus blast resulted in three deaths, and a double car bombing claimed 44 lives. Other parts of India have also suffered from sectarian violence throughout the country's post-independence history, and Kashmir has been the source of enduring hostility between India and Pakistan. The capital city of Dehli was the site of a well-known terrorist attack by Islamic militants in late 2001 when they stormed the country's parliament building. Several people died, including the militants responsible for the attack. They were believed to be from one of two Pakistan-based groups -- Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. That incident, which occurred only three months after the well-known September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, contributed to the devolution of relations between India and Pakistan.

In August 2006, Pakistan accused Deepak Kaul, an Indian official of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad, of handling sensitive documents. Pakistan said that Kaul had been caught "red- handed" and was detained by Pakistani agents and then ordered to leave the country. For his part, Kaul denied any involvement in inappropriate activities. India also denied allegations of wrongdoing and responded by expelling a Pakistani diplomat, Sayed Mohammed Rafq Ahmed.

India Review 2016 Page 49 of 408 pages India

Two months later in October 2006, India detained a Pakistani driver, employed by the High Commission of Pakistan in Delhi, over the illegal transfer of classified documents. Indian security officials said that the Pakistani national, Mohammed Farooq, had been caught receiving the classified military documents. An Indian soldier was also arrested for passing the documents on to the Pakistani driver. Pakistan decried the India's handling of the situation, accusing its neighbor of violating international conventions. To this end, Pakistan released a statement that read as follows: "Pakistan has lodged a strong protest with the Indian government over the illegal detention and manhandling of Farooq, a driver of the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi by the Indian security personnel... The harassment of the Pakistani driver is a violation of international conventions as well as diplomatic norms."

The diplomatic imbroglio appeared to be a manifestation of rising tensions between the two nuclear powers in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks earlier in the summer of 2006. Moreover, these two incidences threatened to derail diplomatic progress between the two nuclear neighbors. With India and Pakistan set to resume peace talks in November 2006, it was unknown how these latest developments would affect the peace process.

Nevertheless, Indo-Pak relations remained on the agenda when Indian authorities said that they believed Pakistan's intelligence agency was responsible for the aforementioned July 2006 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The Indian authorities also said that the terror attacks had actually been carried out by the Pakistan-based Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba (mentioned above). To this end, Indian Police Commissioner A.N. Roy said that 11 Pakistanis were involved in carrying out the attacks, which involved the smuggling of explosives across the border. He also noted that operatives from the Students' Islamic Movement of India had been implicated in the attacks as well. Pakistan rejected the allegations, saying that India's claims were baseless and intended to malign Pakistan.

On November 16, 2006, Pakistan successfully test-fired its Hatf V (also known as Ghauri) missile, with a range of 1,300 kilometers. The Hatf V was said to be nuclear-capable. Pakistan said that the missile test was for the purpose of "checking technical parameters." Three days after Pakistan's missile test, India tested the medium-range Prithvi missile. The surface-to-surface Privthvi missile was said to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads, with a range of 250 kilometers, and could travel 150 kilometers in 300 seconds. The missile test was part of a air defense exercise and was to be followed by further tests. Ironically, the tests came only days after the two nuclear rivals met for peace talks in the Indian capital city of New Delhi.

Developments in 2007

On February 19, 2007, a train bound from the Indian capital of Dehli to the Pakistan city of Lahore was hit by a series of explosions as it passed near the town of Panipat and approached the

India Review 2016 Page 50 of 408 pages India village of Deewana. Two of the train coaches were said to have been engulfed by fire. More than 65 people were reported to have been killed and several more injured as a result of the blasts and resulting flames. Officials for the railway said that they had located five explosive devices capable of producing massive fires. Such a discovery, if confirmed, would indicate that the explosions were a deliberate attack. A spokesperson for India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asserted that the explosions were an "act of terror."

Mid-July 2007 saw the first female president elected in India. Although a late entrant to the presidential election after some left-leaning parties in the ruling coalition rejected the original presidential candidate put forth by the Congress Party, Pratibha Patil won a decisive election victory. After securing approximately two-thirds of the votes cast in India's parliament and state assemblies, Patil was thus set to become the head of state of the world's largest democracy.

Known as being loyal to Congress Party leader, Sonia Gandhi, Patil's political background included a stint as governor of the northern Indian state of Rajasthan. She became a source of controversy after encouraging women to discard their wearing of the veil, which she said was introduced to protect women from Muslim Mughal invaders. She subsequently retracted this view. Following confirmation of her win, Patil said: "I am grateful to the people of India and the men and women of India and this is a victory for the principles which our Indian people uphold." Meanwhile, Gandhi applauded Patil's victory saying, "In the 60th year of our independence, for the first time we have a woman president."

While India has some degree of a history of well-known women in politics -- notably, Prime Minister Indira Gandji and her daughter in law, Sonia Gandhi -- the election of Patil was seen by some as a symbol of progress in a country where women have often suffered from social oppression. However, others regarded her new position was being empty symbolism not at all illustrative of any movement in the status of women in India, where cultural practices, such as bridal dowries, have remained discriminatory.

On August 25, 2007, the specter of terrorism was raised after twin bomb attacks rocked the southern city of Hyderabad in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The attacks occurred within minutes of one another and appeared to target a popular restaurant and an auditorium -- both of which were outdoor venues. More than 40 people were killed and at least 50 more were injured as a result.

The Chief Minister for Andhra Pradesh, Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy, characterized the attacks as acts of terrorism. Indeed, in interviews with the media, Reddy noted that preliminary information indicated the involvement of terrorist organizations in the two Islamic countries bordering India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Meanwhile, forensic investigators were searching for any clues that might be used in conclusively identifying those responsible. In terms of motive, Indian President Pratibha Patil suggested that the attacks may have been rooted in religious animosity, and noted

India Review 2016 Page 51 of 408 pages India that they were aimed at disturbing harmony the religiously mixed city, populated by both Hindus and Muslims. The attacks came three months after a bombing at a mosque dating back to the 17th century; that attack left several people dead also.

Months later, India's most popular Sufi Muslim shrine was hit by an explosion. The explosion ensued on October 11, 2007 as thousands gathered for prayers at the pilgrimge site, located in the city of Ajmer in the state of Rajastan. There were reports of some deaths and over a dozen injuries although there was no immediate explanation as to the cause of the explosion. There were reports that a bomb may have detonated from inside a bag or other such container, however, there was no confirmation at the time of writing. The country was placed on alert as a result of what appeared to have been an attack and not an accidental explosion.

Violence hit again days later. An explosion at a cinema on October 14, 2007, left at least six people dead and more than 30 others wounded. The explosion occurred at a packed movie theatre in the town of Ludhiana in the northern state of Punjab. Mass chaos ensued following the explosion as people attempted to flee what they feared was a bomb. To that end, Indian authorities said that a bomb may have been placed under the seats in the front of the theatre.

On October 27, 2007, an attack by Maoist rebels in the eastern part of India left close to 20 people dead. During a festival in the state of Jharkhand, a group of Maoist rebels numbering around 25 in total opened fire on the crowd. The police said that the border with the neighboring state of Bihar was closed in order to prevent the rebels from escaping. Approximately 6,000 people have died over the course of many years that Maoist rebels have been fighting for the establishment of a communist state. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh characterized the Maoists as being a serious national security threat in India.

Also in October 2007, approximately 25,000 Indians participated in a protest march to draw attention to the plight of the landless and rural population who have not benefited from India's recent economic boom. The protestors began the march on October 2, 2007 -- a national holiday that commemorates the birthday of the father of the modern Indian nation state, Mahatma Gandhi. The march was set to move into the capital city of New Delhi on October 29, 2007

The protestors were predominantly tenant farmers of low caste and landless people of indigenous ethnicity. Chanting the words "give is water, give us land," they criticized government-backed development projects that forced them off their lands, and demanded land redistribution. The protestors also called for a federal authority to direct both land reform and resolve disputes involving land ownership. The protestors additionally condemned the fact that they had not benefited from India's economic growth and development in recent years. To that end, an organizer of the protest march, Puthan Vithal Rajgopal said, "Forty percent of Indians are now landless and 23 percent of them are in abject poverty."

India Review 2016 Page 52 of 408 pages India

While these sorts of protests may have fallen on deaf ears in years gone by, the current government appeared to be responsive to these renewed calls. Notably, plans to construct both a petrochemical facility and a shipyard were shelved as a result of earlier protests. As well, protestors met with the president of the ruling Congress Party, Sonia Gandhi to air their grievances, and were attempting to arrange for talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Developments in 2008:

A period of relative calm in the contested region of Kashmir, which borders Pakistan but has been under Indian control, came to an end in the first part of May 2008. Islamic militants to the south of Jammu were reported to have killed two civilians before being faced with security forces. Subsequent clashed resulted in the death of one soldier.

Note: The area of Kashmir has seen much violence over the years due to its contested status in which it is officially under Indian control but claimed by Pakistan. Islamic militants from across the border in Pakistan have repeatedly tried to wrest control from India through violent means and the use of terror tactics. The issue has been the main source of strife between the two nuclear powers, even leading to more than on war in the past.

A series of well-coordinated bombs were detonated across the historic city of Jaipur in India on May 13, 2008. The death toll was reported as 60 people, however, this number was subject to change. The bombs blasts occurred within seven minutes of one another and went off in close proximity to monuments. The city, located in Rajasthan, has been a popular tourist destination for years and has had no history of violence or religious strife. Officials said that the attacks appeared to be acts of terrorism although there was no immediate claim of responsibility. The motivation behind the bombings was thusly something of a mystery. While Jaipur is inhabited mostly by Hindus, it has also home to Muslim minority.

In late June 2008, a bomb blast at a market in the north-eastern Indian state of Assam left at least six people dead and about 80 others injured. Authorities placed the blame for the bombing on separatist rebels, likely allied with or belonging to the United Liberation Front of Assam (Ulfa). Experts suggested that the attack may have been carried out by a faction of Ulfa opposed to the group's decision to carry out a truce. The head of police intelligence in Assam, Khagen Sharmah, said in an interview with British media that the bombing was a "direct reaction" to the ceasefire declaration by Ulfa commanders. He said, "There is no doubt that such a powerful explosion can be done by only one group in Assam and that is the Ulfa." For its part, however, Ulfa neither denied nor accepted responsibility for the attack.

Also in late June 2008, the decision by the government of Indian-administered Kashmir to transfer land a Hindu shrine organization, the Amarnath Shrine Board, provoked angry and violent protests

India Review 2016 Page 53 of 408 pages India by the region's Muslim majority. The matter also spurred further acrimony stemming from the Muslim/Hindu divisions in Kashmir -- a flashpoint for conflict between mainly Hindu India and mainly Muslim Pakistan. Perhaps realizing that the matter would cause only greater hostility, State Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said the plans for the forested land would be formally revoked.

Late July 2008, saw seven bombs simultaneously explode in the Indian city and information technology hub of Bangalore. At least two people were reported to have been killed and many more were injured, as a result of the attacks. Officials said the bombs were all detonated by timers and were of "low intensity," thus fuelling speculation that they were intended to cause panic rather than cause maximum carnage. There was no immediate claim of responsibility, however, the government vowed to bring those responsible to justice. Home Minister Shivraj Patil said, "Such incidents will not deter the government from pursuing its policy of dealing with terrorists in a resolute manner."

On July 26, 2008 -- one day after the southern Indian city of Bangalore was hit by seven bombs -- the western city of Ahmedabad was plagued by 17 explosions within one hour. The bombs went off in residential areas, market places, public transportation venues, and even hospitals. At least 45 people were reported to have been killed and more than 100 injured as a result of the apparent terrorist attacks.

Unlike the Bangalore bombings that were described as "low intensity," the Ahmedabad bombs employed the use of ball bearings and shrapnel, clearly intended to cause greater harm. As such, the two incidences were viewed separately by officials. Indeed, a hitherto unknown Islamic extremist group, Indian Mujahideen, claimed responsibility for the Ahmedabad bombings, and made clear that sectarian strife was at the core of the violence. The city of Ahmedabad has been no stranger to sectarian strife. As an ethnically and religiously diverse city, it was the site of riots between Hindus and Muslims in 2002 that left hundreds dead.

In response to the attacks, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called on Indian citizens to remain calm. President Pratibha Patil said that the people of India should "remain steadfast in this testing time and maintain peace and harmony."

Meanwhile, in the realm of government, the ruling coalition was faced with a challenge in July 2008. With the Communists withdrawing support for the Congress Party-led coalition government in India, a confidence vote loomed ahead. The Communists withdrew their support in the first part of July 2008 to protest the government's decision to move forward with a civilian nuclear agreement with the United States. The deal provides for India's access to United States civilian nuclear technology and fuel, along with civilian nuclear inspection provisions.

Debate on the nuclear issue, which would set the stage for the confidence vote, was expected to begin on July 20, 2008. Debate would last for two days, with the vote set to take place in

India Review 2016 Page 54 of 408 pages India parliament on July 22, 2008.

Congress Party leader, Sonia Gandhi, expressed confidence that her coalition would prevail saying, "I have no doubt that we shall prove our majority and work to fulfill our remaining agenda." To that end, the Congress Party was hoping to gain the support of the Samajwadi Party. However, if the nuclear issue caused consternation within the Samajwadi Party, the coalition government risked losing the confidence vote and effectively falling from political viability. Such an outcome would thusly pave the way for early elections. Such an end, however, did not come to pass since the Indian government won the confidence vote, according to media reports from New Delhi.

In late September, 2008, a bomb blast at a market in the India's capital city of New Delhi left at least one person dead and more than 15 others wounded. Witnesses said that two men approached the market on a motorcycle and deposited a package, which was revealed to have contained an explosive device. This attack came two weeks after five bombs wrought havoc in shopping areas across New Delhi, killing at least 20 people. Indian authorities placed the blame for the attacks on a group called Indian Mujahideen (IM) and police soon arrested the its founder in the city of Bombay (Mumbai).

Special Report: Mumbai Terror Attacks

More than 175 dead after a series of horrific terror attacks in Mumbai; Indian authorities say militant Pakistani group is responsible

On November 26, 2008, suspected Islamic militants waged a series of simultaneous terror attacks in the heart of India's commercial capital of Mumbai. At least 175 people died as a result and hundreds more were wounded in the attacks that lasted days.

According to Indian authorities, at least ten terrorists -- all young men between the ages of 20 and 23 years -- took control of a fishing trawler in the Arabian Sea. Although the origin of the young men was unknown, Indian authorities surmised that they may have come from the Pakistani port of Karachi since the GPS tracker on the vessel showed a return mapping for that city.

The terrorists traveled for some time on the fishing trawler before abandoning that vessel and then transferring to inflatable dinghies en route for Mumbai. They set alight on land at the Gateway of India in Mumbai, divided themselves into four groups, and then took taxis to the city center. They left either bombs or grenades in the taxis, which exploded soon after they exited the cars at their targeted destinations. Those destinations were the sites of the various terror attacks.

The first of the series of attacks began at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (also known as the Victoria railway station), when the terrorist on the platforms fired indiscriminately on people, killing most of the victims at this particular site. After exiting the train station, the terrorists shot

India Review 2016 Page 55 of 408 pages India three policemen and fired at journalists standing in close proximity to a movie theatre. The terrorists then used a police vehicle, and later another stolen car, to drive through Mumbai shooting at people along the way, as well as those at the Cama hospital for women and children.

Some of the terrorists had launched an attack on the Leopold Cafe, popular with tourists and expatriates. The attack on the Leopold Cafe resulted in destruction and bloodshed. As well, one group of terrorist charged a Jewish rest house in Nariman, taking an orthodox Jewish rabbi and his wife hostage. Their maid had managed to escape the building with the couple's young child.

Meanwhile, yet other cadres of terrorists had charged through two luxury hotels -- the famed Taj Mahal and the Oberoi Trident -- where surviving victims said they had rounded up guests and taken them hostage on the roofs. Surviving victims also said that the terrorists were keen to identify Americans and British guests. As with the railway station, later reports noted that there was a heavy death toll at these hotels. Additionally, the property damage was devastating, largely due to fires and the explosion of grenades.

While the attacks at the railway station, movie theatre, hospitals and cafe came to merciful conclusions, albeit with heavy casualties, the situations at the two luxury hotels and at the Jewish rest house remained unresolved for several days. Indian police and military were ensconced in multi-site sieges with the terrorists, often involving the exchange of gunfire, and with victims trapped and terrified inside the three structures, wondering if they would survive.

The sieges finally ended more than 60 hours later. With the attacks now over, there was a devastating death toll of at least 175 people at the time of writing, and hundreds more injured and battling for their lives. Mumbai's anti-terrorism chief, as well as the Jewish rabbi and his wife, were among those losing their lives in the attacks. Most of the terrorists were also among the dead. The destruction across Mumbai was manifold. In many senses, India had experienced its own equivalent of the United States "9/11" terror attacks. The attacks also revealed the limitations of India's system of security, leading to criticisms about the police training and tactics, and ultimately, the resignation of one of India's leading law enforcement officials.

With the now attacks over, attention turned to the question of who was responsible. Soon after the terror attacks were launched, a hitherto unknown group calling itself Deccan Mujahideen had claimed responsibility. However, Indian authorities, regional analysts and terrorism experts all expressed skepticism that an unknown entity, particularly one based in India, could have had the means to pull off such a massive assault on the country's commercial center. While the terror attacks were of the “low technology” variety, they were nonetheless expertly orchestrated and executed.

The simultaneity of multi-sited attacks was a hallmark of a global jihadist operation, such as al- Qaida. Likewise, the reports that the terrorists were seeking Westerner victims pointed to the likes of al-Qaida or an al-Qaida inspired group with an international (vis a vis regional) agenda. As well,

India Review 2016 Page 56 of 408 pages India

Ayman al-Zawari -- Osama Bin Laden's deputy leader -- had released a statement only weeks earlier. In the past, sudden media appearances by Bin Laden and/or those in his inner circle have sometimes functioned as ominous harbingers of subsequent attacks orchestrated by al-Qaida.

That said, there were other suggestions that the attacks could well have been launched by a Pakistani-based terror group, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the December 2001 storming of the Indian parliament. Another group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, was also mentioned due to its own history of militant Islamist attacks on India. Both militant Islamic groups have focused on the contested territory of Kashmir -- an ongoing source of conflict and even warfare between the two nuclear-capable countries of Pakistan and India over the years. Some regional analysts argued that recent conciliatory gestures by the Pakistani government toward the Congress Party's government in India may have served as motivation for such militant Islamic terrorists who favor a violent hard-line approach, rather than diplomacy, in securing jurisdiction over Kashmir. It should be noted that despite their regional agenda of Kashmir, both Lashkar-e-Taiba as well as Jaish-e-Mohammed have been increasingly regarded as aligned to some degree with al-Qaida, and thus may have adopted some of that group's grander global jihadist aspirations.

Amidst such speculation, investigators indicated that while the terrorists may have had local support, evidence indicated that they were not from India. The Indian government echoed this view, noting that those responsible for the terror attacks must have come from outside India's borders, but stopping short of a full-blown accusation of Pakistan’s complicity despite mounting evidence of a Pakistani connection of some kind or another. For its part, the Pakistani government condemned the attacks but also unequivocally denied any culpability in the attacks. The Pakistani government was also reticent about admitting that the terrorists may have been of Pakistani origins.

Nevertheless, Indian authorities moved one step closer to determining the actual identity of the perpetrators of this terrorist assault on Mumbai after questioning one of the surviving terrorists who had been captured by the police. Indian authorities said that 21-year old Mohammed Ajmal Mohammed Amir Kasar was from Pakistan's Punjab province. The authorities said that Kasar admitted that he belonged to the aforementioned Lashkar-e-Taiba and had been trained at one of that terrorist group's camps in Pakistan. According to Kasar, the objective of the terrorism plot was to "create an international incident." To this end, Kasar noted that "anything big in Mumbai would be noticed all over the world." Kasar also reportedly said that his co-conspirators intended to take hostages "for safe passage."

The revelation that the terrorists belonged to Lashkar-e-Taiba, as well as the contention by counter-terrorism experts that the group was actually an extension of the Pakistani intelligence service, were likely to collectively contribute to the ratcheting up of tensions on the Indian sub- continent.

As before, the Pakistani government was quick to distance itself from any evidence indicating

India Review 2016 Page 57 of 408 pages India

Pakistani involvement. Farhatullah Babar, a spokesman for Pakistani President Asif Zardari, said: "We have demanded evidence of the complicity of any Pakistani group. No evidence has yet been provided."

Some time later, however, Pakistan acknowledged that the only gunman who was captured alive was, indeed, one of its citizens. Pakistan also admitted that the attackers arrived in India from Karachi in Pakistan, on a boat that was hired in the Balochistan province of Pakistan. In this way, Pakistan was finally acknowledging that some degree of conspiracy had originated in Pakistan. Accordingly, Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik promised that suspects from the Lashkar-e- Taiba militant group would face prosecution.

Special Entry: India's Parliamentary Elections of 2009

India's parliamentary elections were held in the spring of 2009 on a phased basis from April 16 to May 13, 2009. There were more than 230 parties contesting the elections and seeking representation in the country's lower house of parliament, known as the Lok Sabha. Prior to the election, it was believed that the result would not bring about a clear majority for any single party, but rather a coalition government, led either by the center-left Congress Party of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, or, the center-right and nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of L.K. Advani.

The two parties crafted wider alliances in respective bids to capture the lion's share of the vote. To that end, the left-leaning Congress Party was at the helm of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), while the right-wing BJP was the main participant in the opposition National Democratic Alliance (NDA). But both alliances would be challenged by a coalition of regional and caste-based groups, known as "Third Front."

Going into the election, the main issues included the economy and security. For its part, the Congress Party showcased the rapid economic growth and investment in social policies, which occurred under its watch. But the more recent challenges to the economy, marked by slowing growth, inflation and loss of jobs, were expected to bode negatively for the party’s electoral aspirations. On the other hand, recent state elections showed little encouragement for the BJP, which focused on internal security and the terrorism threat posed by militant Islam in the aftermath of the tragic Mumbai (Bombay) attacks of November 2008.

On the first day of the Indian election, millions of citizens cast their ballots. But the situation was somewhat marred by attacks by Maoist rebels, which left several people dead in the central and eastern states of the country. In Orissa, the rebels destroyed electronic voting machines at some polling stations. The second phase of voting began in the Indian elections with millions of voters casting ballots and without the violence of the first phase. By early May 2009, as voters cast

India Review 2016 Page 58 of 408 pages India ballots in India's capital city of Delhi and seven states, it was clear that voter awareness campaigns had been successful as overall turnout had increased from the previous election.

Voting ended on May 13, 2009, with counting expected to take place on May 16, 2009. When the phased process of casting ballots finally ended, neither the ruling Congress-led coalition nor the opposition BJP was expected to win an outright victory, setting the stage for smaller regional parties to play kingmaker.

But the conventional wisdom was soon discarded as election results showed a resounding victory for India’s ruling Congress Party.

With most votes counted, the Election Commission of India announced that the Congress Party had won 204 seats, and with its alliance members, it had won 254 seats in the 543-seat Parliament. While 254 was still short of the 272 seats needed for an absolute majority, cobbling together a coalition government with smaller parties would be a feasible proposition. In contrast, the BJP alliance was carrying only 153 seats and was in no position to easily form a coalition government of its own.

The strong performance of the party dominated by the Nehru-Gadhi dynasty put to rest anxieties about an unstable and unmanageable coalition at the helm of the Indian political landscape.

For his part, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared victory and made clear that the Indian electorate had bestowed a "massive mandate" on the Congress Party’s coalition. The prime minister said that the victory was a nod to the party’s platform of balancing free market reforms with poverty alleviation programs, as well as its secular tradition -- a clear contrast with the Hindu nationalist BJP.

Manmohan Singh, a technocrat, was expected to return to top spot in government as prime minister -- a suitable validation from the voters for his leadership. There was also attention on Rahul Gandhi -- the son of party leader, Sonia Gandhi -- who had functioned as the main election strategist. The election victory was one step along a political path that could one day culminate in him becoming prime minister.

On the other side of the equation, the BJP conceded defeat and said that it would enter a period of introspection. Arun Jaitley, a senior BJP leader, said, “The BJP accepts the mandate of the people of India with all humility." Jaitley went on to say, "We will analyze these results in detail." Meanwhile, the high hopes of the insurgent Third Front were entirely derailed.

At the international level, United States President Barack Obama congratulated India on its "historic national elections.” A statement from the White House read: "By successfully completing the largest exercise of popular voting in the world, the elections have strengthened India's vibrant democracy and upheld the values of freedom and pluralism that make India an example for us all.”

India Review 2016 Page 59 of 408 pages India

On May 20, 2009, Indian President Pratibha Patil invited caretaker Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to form the next government with Singh at the helm as prime minister. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA), led by Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi and Singh, presented President Patil with letters of support of 274 members of parliament from parties -- two more than the 272 needed to maintain a majority. The president also received letters of support for the UPA from three parties-- the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), the Samajwadi Party (SP), and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD). These additional 48 members of parliament gave the UPA control of 322 parliamentary seats -- more than enough to form a stable government with a clear majority in parliament. Accordingly, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his cabinet ministers were sworn into office on May 22, 2009. An expanded cabinet was advanced some days later.

Developments in 2009:

In June 2009, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh demanded that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari deal with the Islamic extremist terrorists seeking to attack India. Prime Minister Singh said that peace talks were off the proverbial table unless President Zardari acted against Pakistan's largest terrorist organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the horrific Mumbai (Bombay) terror attacks in November 2008. Under pressure from the United States, Pakistan was already carrying out an offensive against al-Qaida and the Taliban. But despite the public attention on those two groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba was in fact the most significant and active extremist organization operating and orchestrating attacks from within Pakistani terrain.

In late June 2009, faced with violent attacks by Maoist rebels, the Indian government officially banned the Maoist Communist Party of India on the basis that it was a terrorist group. Earlier in the year, the district of Gadchiroli was the site of another battle between Maoists and security forces, and left 15 policemen dead. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh characterized the Maoist rebels as posing the greatest internal security threat to the country. The move provided enhanced powers of arrest, including the detainment of party members whether or not they are involved in terrorist activity.

As well, the Indian government deployed troops to certain key areas of the country where the Maoist rebels have been active, with the objective of retaining control. Notably, one area of West Bengal was said to be under total Maoist control, and the Indian government warned that five states around the eastern and central part of the country could be subject to Maoist attacks, particularly in crowded areas traversed by civilians. In fact, Maoist landmine blasts had already left a hefty death toll on Indian security forces. Meanwhile, in response to the new offensive by the Indian military, the Maoists were actively spurring dissent and had orchestrated a two-day strike.

By July 2009, a series of attacks in India's central state of Chhattisgarh left at least 30 policemen dead, including the superintendent of the police. Indian authorities blamed the attacks on Maoist

India Review 2016 Page 60 of 408 pages India rebels. The attacks included ambushes and landmine explosions and constituted some of the worst violence by the Maoist rebels in recent times.

For about two decades, Maoist rebels have been fighting for communist rule in regions across India. To date, more than 6,000 people have died in the insurgency. In Chattisgarh, about 150 had been killed in 2009 alone. In late June 2009, the Indian government officially banned the Maoist Communist Party of India on the basis that it was a terrorist group. Indeed, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh characterized the Maoist rebels as posing the greatest internal security threat to the country. The move provided enhanced powers of arrest, including the detainment of party members whether or not they are involved in terrorist activity. As well, the Indian government deployed troops to certain key areas of the country where the Maoist rebels have been active, with the objective of retaining control.

In October 2009, a battle between Indian security forces and Maoist insurgents in the Indian state of Maharashtra left at least 17 policemen dead, including a top commander. Indian authorities said the fighting was sparked when a group of 150 Maoist insurgents attacked a police station in a forested area of the Gadchiroli district, and a battle went on for a few hours. The fighting ended when the rebels have fled to the Chhattisgarh border. That very district of Gadchiroli was the site of another battle in February 2009 when 15 policemen died.

A spate of attacks by these insurgents spurred the government of India to warn that the Maoists pose the biggest security threat to the country. With a presence in 200 regions and operations across many states, the Maoist insurgents were certainly positioned to carry out their fight, which they say has been on behalf of the poor and landless. Such a cause, however, cannot obfuscate the violence and bloodshed. Indeed, since the insurgency was launched in the 1960s, thousands of people have died. Moreover, the way in which deaths have ensued in recent times contain a level of unprecedented brutality. In Bihar, a rebel attack on a village left 16 villagers dead, and the beheaded body of a policeman was found in Jharkhand. Indian Home Minister Chidambaram warned that a major offensive operation was in the offing if the rebels refuse to abandon their violent tactics.

In November 2009, there were indications of an offensive in India against the Maoist rebels. The offensive was launched in response to the growing climate of violence in India, which the government has blamed on the Maoists, arguing that they presented the most significant threat to national security. Certainly, violence by Maoists has seen hundreds die every year in India, with up to 100,000 civilians displaced. The violence had grown so widespread that Maoist insurgent actions was noted in over 600 districts across the country. Meanwhile, with a military offensive in the offing, the European Commission warned that humanitarian operations in the impoverished area would be badly compromised.

Meanwhile, earlier in September 2009, Israel warned India that Islamic extremists were plotting

India Review 2016 Page 61 of 408 pages India attacks similar to those carried out in Mumbai the year before. Israel's counter-terrorism unit said that the terrorist group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks were planning further attacks that would target Western and/or Israeli tourists. They characterized their findings as "as concrete, very serious threat." To that end, Israel was reportedly set to issue a travel advisory warning Israelis not to travel to India. According to the Indian government, the terrorist group Lashkar-a-Taiba, was responsible for the attacks in November 2008, which targeted luxury hotels, a train station, and an orthodox Jewish Lubavitch center, and left more than 170 people dead.

In December 2009, the Indian government announced it had agreed to the formation of a new state, Telegana. The move was viewed as acquiescence by the Indian government to popular pressure after K. Chandrasekhar Rao of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti group went on an indefinite fast to press for the establishment of the new state. At issue was the rising climate of tension and violence in the existing state of Andhra Pradesh from which the new Telegana state would be derived. Telegu-speaking Andhra Pradesh was itself was created in 1953 from what is now the Tamil-speaking state of Tamil Nadu. It came into being after a similar case of unrest and an indefinite fast protest. While Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram said the decision had resulted in "normalcy" being returned to Hyderabad -- the main city in the region -- it was expected that tension would not easily be tamped down. Indeed, the very status of Hyderabad was expected to be the focus of a forthcoming power struggle between Andhra Pradesh and Telegana.

Developments in 2010:

On February 11, 2010, a gunman shot and killed Shahid Amzi, the lawyer defending Sabahuddin Ahmed, one of the individuals accused of orchestrating the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbia (Bombay) that left 160 people dead. Those attacks have been attributed to the Muslim extremist terrorist Laskhar-e-Toiba from Pakistan. While the motive for the assassination of Amzi was not clear, it was apparent that he was shot at close range.

Then, days later, at least nine people died and close to 60 others were injured in a bomb attack at a restaurant in India's western city of Pune. The attack appeared to target a German bakery in Koregaon Park, which was popular with tourists and foreign nationals. The area was located close to a Jewish Orthodox center and recalled one of the main targets of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. India's Home Secretary G.K. Pillai said that the bomb was hidden in an unattended package in the bakery and detonated when one of the waiters attempted to open it. The Indian authorities dispatched anti-terrorism squads to the scene to investigate the attack and Home Minister P. Chidambaram wasted no time is characterizing it as "a significant terrorist incident." In an interview with Agence France Presse, he said, "All the evidence points to a deliberate plot."

Both scenarios played out days after India and Pakistan announced that they had agreed to meet for peace talks in Delhi on February 25, 2010. This plan would constitute the first negotiations

India Review 2016 Page 62 of 408 pages India since Indian suspended bilateral talks with Pakistan after the 2008 terror attacks, which were blamed on Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, as noted above.

In mid-February 2010, a Maoist rebel attack on a police camp left at least 24 people dead. The attack also raised questions about the ability of the Indian authorities to deal with the increasing violence being carried out by rebels and terrorists, particularly in important industrial and mining areas. At issue, as noted by Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram, was the fact that the police were caught unaware by the rebels. By the third week of February 2010, however, Home Minister Chidambaram's statement that the Maoists relinquish violence as a pre-condition for talks with the government appeared to have held resonance. A senior Maoist rebel leader, Koteswara Rao, tabled the option of a ceasefire. In an interview with BBC News, Rao said, "First let us have a ceasefire and stop killing each other. Then we will see whether we can talk meaningfully."

On April 6, 2010, Maoist rebels in eastern India ambushed the government forces, leaving at least 70 troops dead. According to the Hindustan Times, the attack happened just as troops from the Central Reserve Police Force were returning to a base camp close to the Maoist rebel stronghold of Dantewada. Indian officials said that about 1,000 rebels may have been involved in the orchestration of the attack.

On September 13, 2010, violence erupted in Indian-administered Kashmir. Protestors reportedly gathered to protest the desecration of the Koran in the United States in defiance of curfews. The demonstrations turned violent as a mob set a government building and a Protestant school ablaze, and then attacked a police station, while chanting anti-Indian and anti-American slogans. Police opened fire on the protestors killing at least 18 civilians. As many as 100 others were wounded in the chaos.

The eruption of violence was not sudden as protests have been ongoing for several months, originating in June 2010 when a 17-year-old student died after being hit by a tear gas shell during protests in Srinagar. This manifestation of violence in Muslim-dominated Kashmir appeared to have been sparked by the controversy in the United States about an American pastor's plans to burn the Koran on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in that country.

As news filters through to Kashmiris that the American pastor did not actually go through with his plans to desecrate the Koran, it was possible that the rising tide of anti-American sentiment in Kashmir could subside. However, antipathy towards India, which has jurisdiction over Muslim- dominated Kashmir, was not likely to decrease in the near future. Instead, the fight to wrest control of Kashmir from India to Pakistan may well be revitalized among militants, effectively refocusing the main flashpoint on the Indian subcontinent between Indians and Pakistanis for more than five decades.

Indeed, anti-Indian antagonism was in high gear by September 18, 2010 when protestors defied a

India Review 2016 Page 63 of 408 pages India curfew and clashed with police, resulting in several deaths. Almost all of the people killed were those engaged in clashes with government forces. In one case, local mourners at a funeral claimed that the government forces opened fire on them, but other reports indicated that some of the mourners were trying to set fire to the home of a pro-India politician. Regardless of the veracity of either side's claims, it was apparent that the Kashmir issue was once again emerging as a key concern on the Indian sub-continent.

In October 2010, a report by The Guardian of the United Kingdom was published citing classified documents from the Indian government indicating the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence services in the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. Included in the report was information about the interrogation of David Headley, a Pakistani-American militant who was arrested and detained in the United States in 2009, in which he asserted that Pakistani intelligence services provided support for the deadly bombings. Headley detailed meetings between Pakistani intelligence services personnel and senior militants from Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) -- the terrorist group responsible for the Mumbai attacks. Headley also noted that at least two of his missions to carry out surveillance of the targets in Mumbai had been funded, at least in part, by Pakistani intelligence services.

Headley described the motivation behind Pakistani intelligence services' support for the attacks on India as being rooted in a desire to shore up militant groups with closer ties to the Pakistani state, who were being displaced by radical groups antagonistic to the state. In effect, while LeT may be regarded by the international community as a deadly and dangerous terrorist enclave, the Pakistani government finds LeT's regional interest in the control over Kashmir to be less of a threat to its own lock on power than the likes of the Taliban and other al-Qaida linked terror groups, which seek the overthrow of the Pakistani government. According to Headley, Pakistani intelligence hoped that a spectacular terror attack by LeT would mitigate the "integration" between Kashmir- focused terror groups and "Taliban-based outfits," viewed as a threat to the Pakistani state.

Developments (2011-2012):

On July 13, 2011, a series of three bombs exploded india's financial hub of Mumbai (Bombay). The near-simultaneous explosions, which appeared to be the result of coordinated terrorism according to the Indian Home Ministry, occurred at the Opera House, Zaveri Bazaar, and around Dadar district in the middle of the rush hour as workers made their way home. The death toll was estimated to be around 20, with more than 130 other being injured. Initial blame was placed on a terrorism enclave known as Indian Mujahideen, which Delhi Police noted have had a pattern of carrying out attacks on the 13th or 26th days of a given month. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has been dispatched to the attack sites in Mumbai to probe this incidence of apparent terrorism. These attacks came three years after the infamous 2008 terrorism assault on Mumbai by ten gunmen, which left 166 people dead. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh condemned these 2011 bombings and called on residents of Mumbai "to remain calm and show a united face." Still,

India Review 2016 Page 64 of 408 pages India major Indian cities were all placed on a state of high alert with a commando team was standing by in Mumbai.

August 2011 saw the popular following of an anti-corruption activist gain steam in India. Anna Hazare, a follower of Mahatma Gandhi, launched a hunger strike in a bid to draw attention to the problem of corruption in that country. At issue was Hazare's push for a stronger citizens' ombudsman bill against graft, known as the "Jan Lokpal."

An earlier hunger strike in April 2011 led to the incorporation of 34 of 40 principles sought by Hazare in the Jan Lokpal. The government refused to include Hazare's demand that an ombudsman should have power to investigate prime minister, members of parliament, and senior judges; this decision motivated Hazare to resume a his hunger strike. As stated by Hazare, "So I have decided until my last breath, until the government gives in to this issue, I will not turn back. I don't care even if I die."

With Hazare utilizing Gandhi's style of passive activism, and with large swaths of the Indian citizenry showing support for the 74-year old, the Indian authorities took the elderly activist into protective custody. An angry outcry by the public soon forced the Indian government to release Hazare from jail, but not before tens of thousands of people had taken to the streets and as many as 2,600 had been detained by police. Under political fire, the Indian authorities eventually released the detainees. However, the Indian government's poor handling of the situation served only to further raise the ire of the Indian people, and caused disruptions in parliament where a collection of economic and reform bills were being pushed forward.

As August 2011 was drawing to a close, members of parliament and politicians from various political parties joined ranks to appeal to Hazare to end his hunger strike, which was now ongoing for past a week. For his part, Hazare dismissed the advise of doctors that he be placed on an intravenous drip to help him rehydrate.

Meanwhile, talks were going on between Hazare's intermediaries and the government to come to some sort of resolution on the imbroglio over the anti-corruption legislation. While a resolution was being sought, there were some rumblings from within the political ranks who warned that the tactics undertaken by Hazare effectively undermine the sovereignty of the government.

This anti-corruption agenda was being advanced at a time when the Indian government was being rocked by a series of corruption and graft scandals. In the background of those concerns was the overall economic climate in which the country was being hit by high inflation and rising food prices.

On Sept. 7, 2011, the Indian capital city of Delhi was rocked by terrorism when a bomb attack targeted the high court. Approximately a dozen people were killed, while more than 60 others were injured as a result of the brutal attack. A few days later, the death toll was revised to more

India Review 2016 Page 65 of 408 pages India than a dozen with around 80 people injured. The bomb, which was planted in a suitcase, was detonated in close proximity to the court's security checkpoint at a time when many people were standing in lines waiting for passes the enter the building. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh characterized the bombing as a "cowardly act of a terrorist nature."

The extremist group, Harkat-ul Jihad al-Islami (Huji), claimed responsibility for the attack. It should be noted that the claim of responsibility by Huji was delivered via email and originated at a cyber cafe in Indian-administered Kashmir. Indian authorities were hesitant to accept Huji as the culprit, noting that the terrorist group of Pakistani origins has not been active in Indian territory for some time. Complicating matters was a counter-claim of responsibility from Indian Mujahideen.

Director General S.C. Sinha of India's National Investigation Agency said that they were vigorously investigating the possibility that Huji -- a known and notorious terrorist group -- was indeed behind the bombing. According to the United States Department of State, Huji has been linked with the Islamist Jihadist terrorist enclave, al-Qaida, and has been deemed responsible for attacks in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The leader of Huji, Ilyas Kashmiri, was believed to have been eliminated as a result of a United States drone strike in north-western Pakistan some months prior.

The attack raised questions as to whether or not Indian authorities were capable of protecting the country from the scourge of terrorism, despite a state of heightened security following the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai (Bombay). As reported by BBC News, this question was posed by an opposition member of parliament, Arun Jaitley, as follows: "Have we become so vulnerable that terrorist groups can almost strike at will?" For his part, the Indian head of government noted that the war against terrorism would continue for some time. In an interview with media, Prime Minister Singh said, "This is a long war in which all political parties, all the the people of India, have to stand united so that this scourge of terrorism is crushed."

On Feb. 13, 2012, Israel's embassies in India and Georgia were struck by bomb attacks. In the Indian capital city, a magnetic bomb attached to a vehicle left the wife of an Israeli diplomat wounded as she traveled to retrieve her children from school at the American embassy. She was said to be in stable condition in a New Delhi hospital. In the Georgian capital, a bomb was discovered attached to a car in the Israeli diplomatic fleet. Georgian police were able to defuse the bomb after an Israeli embassy employee alerted them to the situation in Tbilisi.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasted no time in accusing Iran of being behind the two bombs, characterizing Iran as "the greatest exporter of terror in the world." Netanyahu also observed that there were recent thwarted attacks on Jews and Israelis in places such as Azerbaijan and Thailand,. Speaking of this trend, the Israeli prime minister noted, "In all these cases, the elements behind the attacks were Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah." Israel said that its foreign missions would be placed on high alert, given the current landscape.

While Iran offered no immediate response, it was certainly the case that Tehran had promised to

India Review 2016 Page 66 of 408 pages India seek revenge for a number of targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, which that country blames on Israel.

In April 2012, India reportedly launched its long-range Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile. The Agni-V missile -- named for its Hindu and Sanskrit meaning of "fire" -- is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and has a range of more than 3,100 miles (or 5,000 kilometers). With that range, this missile could conceivably reach several major Chinese cities. The Agni-V is among India's most sophisticated weaponry and appeared to be aimed at displaying its nuclear deterrence program.

An (indirect) presidential election was scheduled to be held in India on July 19, 2012. In India, the president is the titular head of state (distinct from the prime minister who is the head of government), and is elected for a five-year term by an electoral college consisting of elected members from both houses of the "Sansad" (Parliament) and the legislatures of the states.

In 2012, the major contenders for the presidency were Pranab Mukherjee, of the ruling United Progressive Alliance party, and P.A. Sangma, a former speaker of the Indian parliament and the candidate of the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance.

All expectations were that Mukherjee would secure the presidency, given the ruling party's dominance in parliament, whose votes are crucial to the outcome of the election. Indeed, with the votes counted it was Mukherjee who emerged victorious. According to the independent Election Commission Mukherjee secured an overwhelming victory having won more than 558,000 votes against 240,000 votes by Sangma. Accordingly, Mukherjee was set to be sworn into office as India's new president on July 25, 2012.

Note: Pranab Mukherjee, of the ruling United Progressive Alliance party, holds two master's degrees as well as a law degree. A native of the eastern state of West Bengal, he has served in a number of capacities in India's ruling Congress party and held a number of key ministerial portfolios, including defense and foreign affairs.

In August 2012, the opposition candidate in India's 2012 presidential candidate, P.A. Sangma, was challenging the legitimacy of newly-elected Pranab Mukherjee in the post of head of state.

India's indirect presidential election was held a month prior in July 2012 and was a contest primarily between Pranab Mukherjee, of the ruling United Progressive Alliance Party, and P.A. Sangma, a former speaker of the Indian parliament and the candidate of the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance. In India, the president is the titular head of state (distinct from the prime minister who is the head of government), and is elected for a five- year term by an electoral college consisting of elected members from both houses of the "Sansad" (Parliament) and the legislatures of the states. Because of the dominance of the United

India Review 2016 Page 67 of 408 pages India

Progressive Alliance party in these bodies, it was Mukherjee who secured the presidency. According to the independent Election Commission Mukherjee secured an overwhelming victory having won more than 558,000 votes against 240,000 votes by Sangma; he was sworn into office as India's new president on July 25, 2012.

A month later in the third week of August 2012, Sangma -- the losing candidate from the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance -- move to advance a legal challenge of Mukherjee's legitimacy as president. Sangma was charging that Mukherjee held a "for profit" office as the Chairman of Indian Statistical Institute at the time of his nomination, and that proper procedure was not followed as regards Mukherjee's resignation from the institute.

The move by Sangma heralded only the second time in India's modern history that a president's election has been subject to challenge. Indeed, the year 1969 saw the election of President V.V. Giri challenged, although the petition was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court. It was yet to be seen if this legal challenge would end in a similar manner.

2013 Update:

On Feb. 21, 2013, several people were killed and dozens more were injured when two bombs exploded in the Indian city of Hyderabad -- the capital of the southern state of Andhra Pradesh. The first blast ensued at a park while the second one took place at a restaurant. The bombs appeared to have been attached to bicycles. Indian police officials said the two bombings constituted a terrorist attack. V. Dinesh Reddy, the director general of police, said in an interview with The Hindu, "It appears to be a terrorist attack, though we have not yet got full information of the incident. At least 10 are dead."

Indian Home Affairs Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde said that the federal government had warned state governments that an attack was imminent, although the precise location was unknown. Shinde said, "We have had some information for the last two days of such an incident. At this stage it is difficult to say more." Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh promised retribution and accountability via the social media outlet, Twitter, as he declared: "This is a dastardly attack, the guilty will not go unpunished."

It should be noted that Hyderabad was not new to violence, having been the target of terrorism before. In 2007, two bombs rocked Hyderabad, killing more than 40 people. Several other bombs were found throughout the city at the time and had to be defused by police. The banned Harkat- ul-Jihad-al-Islami militant entity from Bangladesh, known as "Huji," was suspected as being behind the blasts. Suspicion also fell on extremist entities from Andhra Pradesh.

In regards to the 2013 attacks in Hyderabad, investigators were searching for evidence and a motive for the violence. At the top of the list of likely suspects was the Islamic militant group,

India Review 2016 Page 68 of 408 pages India

Indian Mujahideen. Individuals from the group, which has links to extremist Islamic militants in Pakistan, were arrested in 2012 and during questioning at the time admitted that they had done reconnaissance of a Hyderabad district where these 2013 blasts ultimately occurred.

There were also suggestions that the 2013 terror attacks in Hyderabad might be connected with the recent execution of an Islamic militant responsible for the 2001 terror assault on the Indian parliament. That 2001 terror assault was linked to two Pakistan-based terrorist groups Lashkar-e- Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, with control over contested Kashmir at the center of their grievances.

At the start of May 2013, an Indian national who was convicted of spying by a court in Pakistan and subsequently jailed in that country as he awaited a death sentence, died at the hands of fellow inmates. At issue in that court case was Sarabjit Singh's role in a series of bomb attacks that left 14 people dead in Pakistan in 1990. Singh and his family have long insisted that he was innocent and accidentally strayed into Pakistani territory where he was arrested. However, those claims fell on deaf ears in Pakistan with mercy petition after mercy petition rejected by both the Pakistani court system and then-President Pervez Musharraf.

Now, in 2013, Sarabjit Singh had been attacked by his fellow prisoners at the Kot Lakhpat jail in the Pakistani city of Lahore; he succumbed to a coma and was taken to the Jinnah hospital where he died.

Indians at home recoiled in horror at the news while the office Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh demanded that the perpetrators be brought to justice for their "barbaric" attack. The Indian prime minister also addressed the issue personally, asserting via the social media venue Twitter, "Particularly regrettable that the Govt of Pakistan did not heed the pleas.... to take a humanitarian view of this case." The incident was not expected to help relations between the two nuclearized countries on the Indian subcontinent -- India and Pakistan -- who had already fought a few wars and remained at odds over Kashmir's jurisdiction.

It should be noted that on the day Singh was cremated, a Pakistani prisoner , Sanaullah Ranjay, was attacked by a fellow inmate at a maximum-security prison in Indian-administered Kashmir . He ultimately died of multi-organ failure at a hospital in India. Authorities in India said that ranjay's body would be returned to Pakistan, while Pakistani authorities demanded an investigation into the matter. Ranjay had been held in jail for close to two decades on chargest related to militant extremist activities.

On May 26, 2013, Maoist extremists carried out an attack on the leadership of the Congress Party in India's Chhattisgarh state. The attack ensued when Maoist rebels ambushed the convoy carrying Congress Party politicians and party workers as they traversed the Darba Ghati valley after a campaign rally.

India Review 2016 Page 69 of 408 pages India

More than two dozen people died as a result of the attack including Nandkumar Patel, the head of Chhattisgarh's Congress Party, his son, Dinesh Patel, and a local leader identified to be Mahendra Karma, who led a local militia tasked with fighting the Maoists. More than 30 people were also wounded in the attack including a former federal minister, Vidya Charan Shukla.

In response to the bloodshed, Sonia Gandhi, the president of India's Congress Party, expressed her devastation and made a point of visting some of the injured victims along with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. In an interview with the media, Gandhi said: "Naturally, we are devastated. It is despicable that ordinary people engaged in political activity were attacked." For his part, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh condemned the "barbaric attack" and made it clear that his government would "never bow down" before the rebels. In a statement, he said: "Government will take firm action against the perpetrators of violence of any kind."

It should be noted that the Maoist rebels, who have also been referred to as "Naxalites," have operated in central and eastern India for four decades. They have been carrying out a campaign of violence and terror as they seek to overthrow what they view as India's "semi-colonial, semi- feudal" system of administration and replace it with a communist state.

The Politics of Kashmir in 2013

January 2013 saw clashes erupt close to Kashmir's "Line of Control." The clashes resulted in the deaths of two Indian soldiers as well as two Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan claimed that there had been "unprovoked" gunfire emanating from Indian troops ahead of the death of one of their soldiers. In response, the Indian army denied taking any provocative actions. India drew attention to the killing of two of their soldiers in a Pakistani border attack, as well as the "barbaric" mutilation of the bodies of the soldiers. For its part, Pakistan denied India's version of the events.

Although both countries initially appeared to be interested in de-escalating the tensions, on Jan. 12, 2013, the Indian military was hinting that it would entertain its options to counter Pakistan's violation of a prevailing ceasefire at the Line of Control. Indian Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne said in an interview with the media that although the two countries had mechanisms like the Line of Control and the 2003 ceasefire agreement in place, "violations with impunity" were "unacceptable." He continued, "We are watching the situation carefully, if the violations continue, perhaps we may have to think of some other options for compliance."

Taking an even stronger tone, the Indian army chief, General Bikram Singh, accused Pakistan of being involved in the planning of the attacks that left two Indian soldiers dead. He characterized the bloodshed was "pre-meditated, pre-planned activity" and called on Indian troops to be "aggressive and offensive in the face of provocation and fire" from Pakistan. Moreover, on Jan. 15, 2013,

India Review 2016 Page 70 of 408 pages India

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed a warning to Pakistan on the matter of Kashmir, saying it "cannot be business as usual" with Pakistan after the deaths of two Indian soldiers. He made particular mention of the fact that one soldier was beheaded -- an apparent reference to the mutilation of the bodies of the soldiers noted above. In addition to the Indian army chief's warning that "aggressive" consequences would be in the offing, Indian authorities also halted a planned "visa on arrival" program for some Pakistani citizens.

In the second week of February 2013, violent protests broke out in the Indian-controlled Kashmir, with more than 35 people -- including 23 policemen -- injured as a result. The eruption of violence appeared to be in response to the execution of Mohammed Afzal Guru, who was convicted by Indian authorities for his involvement in the 2001 terrorist attack on the Indian House of Parliament. That attack was linked to two Pakistan-based terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, with control over contested Kashmir at the center of their grievances. Guru was sentenced to death in 2004 by the Indian Supreme Court for his role in that attack that audacious attack on the Indian parliament. The death sentence was set to be carried out in 2006, however, it was delayed following a mercy petition by Guru's wife. Now, in 2013, the execution had taken place, evidently sparking the anger of some in the disputed territory of Kashmir.

See "Special Note on Kashmir" below for recent developments related to this contested territory.

Primer on India's 2014 parliamentary elections

Parliamentary elections were expected to be held in India on a phased basis from April 7, 2014, to May 12, 2014. At stake would be control over the parliament. In India, the legislative branch of government is the bicameral "Sansad" (Parliament), which consists of the "Rajya Sabha" (Council or House of the States) and the "Lok Sabha" (House of the People or People's Assembly). In regards to control over the government, the action would be in the "Lok Sabha" (House of the People or People's Assembly), composed of 545 members; members are elected by popular vote to serve five-year terms.

Typically, the leader of the largest party or bloc in parliament leads the government as the prime minister; he/she is expected to maintain support of the majority in this lower house of parliament.

Note that in the previous elections of 2009, outgoing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Congress party won the most seats in the lower house over the opposing nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Pre-polling data for 2014 indicated a reveral of fortune for both parties was in the offing. See "Background" below for details.

Background on 2014 elections --

India Review 2016 Page 71 of 408 pages India

In January 2014, India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced his retirement, saying he did not intend to continue on as head of government, even if his Congress Party won the next elections, which were expected to be held by mid-2014. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who has served as head of government for more than a decade and who has generally been viewed as an effective steward of India's economy, made note of his administration's success, saying, "An array of historical legislations has been enacted to make the work of the government transparent and accountable." He also defended his political legacy, pointing to his government's efforts on behalf of the poor and on behalf of farmers, while also emphasizing that his government had "transformed the education landscape of the country."

Looking to the future, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared: "In a few months time, after the general election, I will hand the baton over to a new prime minister." Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed confidence that his Congress Party would again secure victory (having won the previous 2004 and 2009 elections), and so that new prime minister would be from his party. Still, the prime minister made it clear that his time at the helm was over, saying, "I have ruled myself out as a prime ministerial candidate." The prime minister also made note of the fact that there was a crop of youthful party leaders that should have a chance in the limelight, noting that Rahul Gandhi -- son of Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Congress Party -- possessed the kind of credentials worthy of being nominated as the party's candidate. Speaking of the need to turn power over to the younger generation, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said: "I am confident that the new generation of our leaders will also guide this great nation successfully through the uncharted and uncertain waters of global change."

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had harsh words for the opposition nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which saw success in local elections in key states in recent time. The outgoing prime minister emphasized the importance of defeating the BJP in the national elections and vociferously asserted that it would be "disastrous for the country" if opposition leader, Narendra Modi, were elected as prime minister. Referring to the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in 2002 that left more than 1,000 people dead in the western state of Gujarat where Modi was chief minister, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh disparaged the notion of the prime minister’s office being held by Modi. He declared, "Someone who presided over the massacre of innocent people should not be the prime minister."

By the middle of January 2014, after a meeting of senior party officials, Rahul Gandhi -- whom outgoing Prime Minister Singh had referenced as a worthy example of the party's crop of young leaders -- was named as the individual to lead the Congress party into the next elections. Of course it should be noted there was no confirmation that Rahul Gandhi would actually be the party's candidate for prime minister. As noted by the president of the Congress Party, Sonia Gandhi, it was not traditional practice to announce a prime ministerial candidate ahead of the elections.

India Review 2016 Page 72 of 408 pages India

Rahul Gandhi was certainly a natural successor to the helm of leadership of the historic Congress Party. Indeed, the Gandhi family has long been viewed as India's premier political dynasty and certainly as the "caretakers" of sorts of India's Congress Party. Rahul Gandhi was the great- grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru -- India's first prime minister after independence from the United Kingdom and an icon of Indian politics for much of the 20th century. Rahul Gandhi was also the grandson of Indira Gandhi (no relation to Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi) -- a trail blazer as India's first female head of government. Rahul Gandhi’s father was Rajiv Gandhi who also served as prime minister of India. After the assassination of his mother, Indira Gandhi at the hands of Sikh extremists, Rajiv Gandhi became head of government; but he also suffered a tragic fate having himself been assassinated -- this time by Tamil extremists. Rajiv Gandhi's widow -- an Italian national, Sonia Gandhi -- subsequently became the head of the Congress Party. Rahul Gandhi -- the son of assassinated Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi -- entered the political arena himself and became the Congress Party's vice president. As discussed here, in January 2014, he was announced as the person who would lead the Congress Party in the next elections.

It should be noted that the Congress Party itself was suffering from lagging approval, due to a combination of economic sluggishness, inflation, and corruption allegations. In fact, polls showed the rival nationalist BJP (mentioned above) with the advantage at the start of 2014. The newly- formed anti-corruption Aam Admi Party was also attracting a following that could detract from the Congress Party's goal of holding onto power by splitting the anti-BJP vote share. Election victory for the BJP over the Congress Party would likely propel the controversial party leader, Modi, into the position of head of government. Such a development could well spark sectarian dissonance in India, given Modi's role in the anti-Muslim riots of 2002.

With the Congress Party likely anticipating defeat at the forthcoming polls, and with an eye on protecting the long-term image of the young Gandhi whose career in the public sphere was only just beginning, the incumbent ruling party made the political calculation not to set up the forthcoming contest as a battle between Modi and Gandhi.

The Election

With the Indian election set to commence on April 7, 2014, it was apparent that polling data was coinciding with the general perception that the BJP was set to clinch victory and its Hindu nationalist leader, Modi, was on track to become India's next prime minister.

As the 2014 elections began, polling data reported by the news channel, CNN-IBN, and Lokniti at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies said the BJP was likely to capture 38 percent of the vote share, with the ruling Congress Party-led alliance would likely take 28 percent of the vote share. This would translate into a clear majority in parliamentary seats for the BJP and its allies over the Congress Party-led alliance of parties.

India Review 2016 Page 73 of 408 pages India

By mid-April 2014, with phased voting well underway, fresh polling by the NDTV news channel showed the BJP headed for victory but with a narrow majority of parliamentary seats.

At the start of May 2014, before the phased voting process was complete, polling data continued to suggest that Modi and the BJP were headed for victory, effectively displacing the Congress party- led government from power. That being said, there were signs that while Modi, the BJP, and its allies would garner a plurality of the vote share, it might fall short of an outright majority. Meanwhile, turnout was reported to be high and marked by the increased participation of younger and first-time voters, as well as women.

By May 12, 2014, with the phased voting process complete, exit poll data indicated that Modi and the BJP were on track for victory. Several different polling outfits were offering estimates of the BJP victory, suggesting the party would carry anything from 250 to 285 (273 would be needed for outright majority). The Congress Party was expected to carry only about 100 seats. Should this exit poll data prove predictive, Modi was set to become India's new prime minister.

It should be noted that polling data in India is notorious for being inaccurate and, indeed, failed to measure the Congress Party's margin of victory in 2009. Of course, no official election results would be available until later in the month (May 2014). To that end, on May 16, 2014, the Congress Party officially conceded defeat to the BJP. A triumphant Modi -- the son of a tea stall owner -- would likely take the reins of power as India's new prime minister and would have strong parliamentary support to set the political agenda in India. Indeed, the BJP was on course to secure 282 seats in the 543 seat legislative body -- a clear and convincing victory and the first majority government in India after 25 years of coalitions. It was a mandate from the voters that India was ready for change.

Not one to claim victory graciously, Modi lashed out at the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty that has dominated Indian politics since independence, declaring: "Four to five generations have been wasted since 1952, this victory has been achieved after that." Modi continued by looking towards his political agenda as he said, "I am confident about the future of India... I firmly believe that the emergence of India as a major powerhouse of the evolving global economy is an idea whose time has come."

Meanwhile, within the Congress Party, both Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi said they would step down from their leadership posts in the aftermath of the party's crushing defeat at the polls. However, insiders refused to accept their respective resignation offers and, instead, called on Sonia Gandhi to reform the Congress Party. This move indicated that there was no desire by the party to sever its historic bonds with the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. It was to be seen if Sonia Gandhi’s daughter, Priyanka Gandhi, would play a more prominent role in to future Congress Party.

India Review 2016 Page 74 of 408 pages India

Special Note on Kashmir

In the first part of October 2014, intense fighting broke out between Pakistani and Indian forces in the Indian-controlled region of Kashmir in the Himalayas. The clashes began at the start of October 2014 and lasted more than a week, with nine Pakistani and eight Indian civilians being killed in the crossfire of violence between the two sides. At least 18,000 Indian nationals fled the area of Jammu to escape the violence, and claimed they were enduring harsh conditions at relief camps as they waited for the fighting to end.

While Kashmir is legally under Indian jurisdiction, it is home to a mostly Muslim population and claimed by Pakistan. For years, it has been the source of an intractable flashpoint between the two countries, even leading to war at times. Sporadic exchanges of gun fire and even clashes erupt despite a ceasefire that has remained mostly in tact since 2003; however, heavy fighting that leads to the deaths of civilians, of the type experienced in October 2014 can be regarded as a relative rarity.

India blamed Pakistan for the fighting in October 2014, saying that its own forces had retaliated to machine gun fire and mortar attacks on various positions along the border. Throughout, India has placed the responsibility for eruptions of fighting along the border on Pakistani troops, saying that they have offered cover to separatists, militants, and extremists as they violated the border and entered India's territory -- potentially with an eye on carrying out terrorist attacks in India. Indeed, there have been no shortage of terror attacks by Pakistani Islamic terrorists on India over the issue of Kashmir. One of the most significant was the storming of the Indian parliament in 2001 by Pakistani Islamic extremists from Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad -- both known Pakistani terrorist groups with aspirations in Kashmir. For its part, Pakistan typically downplays its role as a center and venue for Islamic terrorists (facts to the contrary notwithstanding) and normally accuses India of inflating its claims that Pakistanis are violating the border and plotting attacks on Indian territory.

Returning to the volatile conditions in October 2014 in Kashmir, Indian authorities expressed concern over the eruption of violence and urged a resolution. In an interview with the media, Arup Raha, the Air Chief Marshall of the Indian Air Force said: "We are all concerned and want an early solution to it [the clashes]." He continued, "We don't want to let the issue become serious."

In the background of these developments in Kashmir were the political dynamics in the respective capitals of New Delhi and Islamabad.

In the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was dealing with oppostion protests and an ineffective policy of dealing with Islamist terrorists, such as the Taliban. A weakened Sharif became dependent on the Pakistani military to hold onto power, and thus has had

India Review 2016 Page 75 of 408 pages India to concede his own predilections in favor of the military's stance towards India. That stance was not particularly hospitable to the notion of reconciliation with India.

Meanwhile, in the Indian capital of New Delhi, newly-elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose history of hardline positions against Muslims earned him both praise and condemnations, was riding high in a wave of popular support. As a known Hindu nationalist, he would likely be allowed a great deal of latitude in dealing with Pakistani aggression. Modi's tougher stances with Pakistan were illustrated by his decisions to cancel talks with Pakistan and not meet with Nawaz during meetings of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2014.

Editor's Note on Kashmir --

Kashmir has been a flashpoint for several decades. A fiercely disputed territory, Kashmir is legally administered by India, but claimed by Pakistan. The dispute has resulted in conflicted conditions on the Indian sub-continent, which have frequently resulted in armed conflict. Although a final status agreement has yet to be reached, the "Line of Control" that separates Indian-controlled Kashmir from Pakistani territory serves as the de facto international border between the two countries. The geopolitical importance of the dispute has been confounded by both sides’ acquisition of nuclear weapons in 1998. In recent years, India has accused Pakistan of backing militants that have attacked civilian and military targets inside Indian-controlled Kashmir. Indeed, groups such as Lashkar e Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen have carried out terrorist attacks with an eye on ultimately taking control of Kashmir. The group has been said that its aspirations in Kashmir are linked with the broader jihadist efforts. Despite not being able to comprehensively resolve the conflict, India and Pakistan have made some progress in recent years in agreeing to establish transportation links such as a bus service across the "Line of Control," and more recently, the easing of visa restrictions. But the clashes in early 2013, particularly punctuated by the brutal killings of two Indian soldiers, resulted in India's decision to halt plans for a "visa on demand" program. The eruption of violence along the border in 2014 was not expected to improve the situation. Indeed, the political conditions in the respective capitals of New Delhi and Islamabad were not conducive to reconciliation. Instead, the leadership in India and Pakistan were more likely to stake out hard line -- and nationalistic -- positions, with neither side likely willing to cede ground.

Taliban suicide bomber carries out attack on Pakistani-Indian border

At the start of November 2014, a suicide bomber carried out attack on the Pakistani-Indian border, killing more than 45 people and injuring at least 70 more as a result. The Islamic terror group, the Taliban, claimed responsibility for the act of violence, saying it was revenge against the Pakistani army, which was carrying out an anti-Taliban offensive in the tribal areas on the Afghan-Pak border. This act of revenge, however, took place at a crossing at Lahore on the border with India,

India Review 2016 Page 76 of 408 pages India although no Indian troops were killed as a result. The Taliban attack on the border crossing at Lahore on Nov. 2, 2014 in reaction to the military's offensive operation only served to underline the reality that Islamic terror groups were, indeed, functioning in Pakistan. Indeed, they posed a threat to regional security.

Popular Indian PM Modi faced with upheaval thanks to prosecution of several cabinet ministers

In November 2014, India's popular Prime Minister Narendra Modi was faced with upheaval within his own government when as many as seven of his cabinet ministers were faced with prosecution. The highly disturbing list of charges against the seven cabinet ministers newly-appointed to government included criminal intimidation and fraud, waging war on the state, and even rape, rioting, and attempted murder. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley dismissed the charges and declared that claims that Prime Minister Modi's cabinet was filled with criminal were "completely baseless." He explained to the media, "These are cases arising out of criminal accusations, not cases out of a crime." The legitimacy of the charges aside, the fact of the matter was that the prosecutorial thrust against so many individuals appointed by Prime Minister Modi would do little to mitigate the burgeoning scandal. For Modi, who came to power promising to address corruption, the political damage to his image could prove threatening.

U.S. President Obama and Indian PM Modi announce new era in bilateral friendship and cooperation

During his official visit to the world's largest democracy -- India -- United States President Barack Obama planted a tree and laid a wreath at the memorial for Mahatma Gandhi at Raj Ghat in New Delhi. Paying his respects to the father of independent India, President Obama paused for contemplation at Gandhi's memorial, and placed two handfuls of rose petals on top. President Obama also was the main guest at India's Republic Day celebrations where he was warmly received by the enthusiastic Indian people.

It should be noted that Indian Prime Minister Modi broke protocol to personally receive President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as they arrived at the airport in New Dehli. Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed President Obama's historic visit, noting that India and the United States were now embarking on a "new journey" of cooperation. President Obama struck a similar tone, saying that his country welcomed its friendship with India.

In the realm of foreign relations, on Jan. 25, 2015, President Obama issued a joint announcement with Indian Prime Minister Modi on civilian nuclear cooperation. At issue was a breakthrough pact that would facilitate the supply of American civilian nuclear technology to India. Also on the agenda were new renewable energy options. United States Ambassador Richard Verma said: "It

India Review 2016 Page 77 of 408 pages India opens the door for US and other companies to come forward and actually help India towards developing nuclear power and support its non carbon-based energy production." The United States and India also agreed to cooperate on fighting terrorism.

At the start of February 2015, Indian oficials said that the "breakthrough" civilian nuclear deal could be finalized later in the year. United States officials have said that two items were pending before the agreement could be finalized: 1. India would have to ratify a United Nations nuclear convention -- the International Atomic Energy Agency's Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC); and 2. An insurance concord would have to be established preventing suppliers from being subject to draconian lawsuits in the event of nuclear disasters.

Demonstrators take to the streets in India to protest against PM Modi's economic reform agenda

At the start of September 2015, protesters took to the streets in cities across India to register their discontent over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's economic reform package. At issue was the prime minister's plan to stimulate India's sluggish economy and spur job creation, but which included the relaxing of key labor laws. Unions reacted to the news with outrage and called for a strike, which attracted the participation of close to 150 million workers in various industries ranging from the banking and manufacturing sectors, and extending to the transportation and construction arenas. In addition to the strike, there were also mass protests with Calcutta - home to a strong socialist infrastructure -- attracting the most demonstrators. In parliament, opposition parties were closing ranks in the effort to block the reform legislation sought by Prime Minister Modi.

Indian diplomatic mission in Afghanistan targeted by Islamist militants

December 2015 was marked by a spate of attacks across Afghanistan at the hands of the notorious Islamist extremist group, the Taliban. The start of 2016 fared no better with an attack on the Indian diplomatic mission in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e-Sharif. The assailants were not able to penetrate the compound for the Indian consulate and instead had occupied a building close by. Nevertheless, there were reports of gun battles and explosions at the scene. It should be noted that Indian diplomatic missions have long been favored targets for Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan. The Indian embassy in Kabul was hit in both 2008 and 2009 with deadly consequences, while the Indian consulate in Jalalabad was struck in 2013 and also led to the deaths of several people. In 2015, the Indian consulate in Herat was the target of attack by gunmen, with this attack at the start of 2016 being the latest effort of this type.

India Review 2016 Page 78 of 408 pages India

-- January 2016

Written by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, CountryWatch.com -- www.countrywatch.com . Research sources listed in the Bibliography. Supplementary sources: IPCS, New Delhi, IDSA, New Delhi, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, The Times of India

Political Risk Index

Political Risk Index

The Political Risk Index is a proprietary index measuring the level of risk posed to governments, corporations, and investors, based on a myriad of political and economic factors. The Political Risk Index is calculated using an established methodology by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on varied criteria* including the following consideration: political stability, political representation, democratic accountability, freedom of expression, security and crime, risk of conflict, human development, jurisprudence and regulatory transparency, economic risk, foreign investment considerations, possibility of sovereign default, and corruption. Scores are assigned from 0-10 using the aforementioned criteria. A score of 0 marks the highest political risk, while a score of 10 marks the lowest political risk. Stated differently, countries with the lowest scores pose the greatest political risk. A score of 0 marks the most dire level of political risk and an ultimate nadir, while a score of 10 marks the lowest possible level of political risk, according to this proprietary index. Rarely will there be scores of 0 or 10 due to the reality that countries contain complex landscapes; as such, the index offers a range of possibilities ranging from lesser to greater risk.

Country Assessment

India Review 2016 Page 79 of 408 pages India

Afghanistan 2

Albania 4

Algeria 6

Andorra 9

Angola 4

Antigua 8

Argentina 4

Armenia 4-5

Australia 9.5

Austria 9.5

Azerbaijan 4

Bahamas 8.5

Bahrain 6

Bangladesh 3.5

Barbados 8.5-9

Belarus 3

Belgium 9

Belize 8

India Review 2016 Page 80 of 408 pages India

Benin 5

Bhutan 5

Bolivia 5

Bosnia-Herzegovina 4

Botswana 7

Brazil 7

Brunei 7

Bulgaria 6

Burkina Faso 4

Burma (Myanmar) 4.5

Burundi 3

Cambodia 4

Cameroon 5

Canada 9.5

Cape Verde 6

Central African Republic 3

Chad 4

Chile 9

India Review 2016 Page 81 of 408 pages India

China 7

China: Hong Kong 8

China: Taiwan 8

Colombia 7

Comoros 5

Congo DRC 3

Congo RC 4

Costa Rica 8

Cote d'Ivoire 4.5

Croatia 7

Cuba 4-4.5

Cyprus 5

Czech Republic 8

Denmark 9.5

Djibouti 4.5

Dominica 7

Dominican Republic 6

East Timor 5

India Review 2016 Page 82 of 408 pages India

Ecuador 6

Egypt 5

El Salvador 7

Equatorial Guinea 4

Eritrea 3

Estonia 8

Ethiopia 4

Fiji 5

Finland 9

Fr.YugoslavRep.Macedonia 5

France 9

Gabon 5

Gambia 4

Georgia 5

Germany 9.5

Ghana 6

Greece 4.5-5

Grenada 8

India Review 2016 Page 83 of 408 pages India

Guatemala 6

Guinea 3.5

Guinea-Bissau 3.5

Guyana 4.5

Haiti 3.5

Holy See (Vatican) 9

Honduras 4.5-5

Hungary 7

Iceland 8.5-9

India 7.5-8

Indonesia 6

Iran 3.5-4

Iraq 2.5-3

Ireland 8-8.5

Israel 8

Italy 7.5

Jamaica 6.5-7

Japan 9

India Review 2016 Page 84 of 408 pages India

Jordan 6.5

Kazakhstan 6

Kenya 5

Kiribati 7

Korea, North 1

Korea, South 8

Kosovo 4

Kuwait 7

Kyrgyzstan 4.5

Laos 4.5

Latvia 7

Lebanon 5.5

Lesotho 6

Liberia 3.5

Libya 2

Liechtenstein 9

Lithuania 7.5

Luxembourg 9

India Review 2016 Page 85 of 408 pages India

Madagascar 4

Malawi 4

Malaysia 8

Maldives 4.5

Mali 4

Malta 8

Marshall Islands 6

Mauritania 4.5-5

Mauritius 7

Mexico 6.5

Micronesia 7

Moldova 5

Monaco 9

Mongolia 5

Montenegro 6

Morocco 6.5

Mozambique 4.5-5

Namibia 6.5-7

India Review 2016 Page 86 of 408 pages India

Nauru 6

Nepal 4

Netherlands 9.5

New Zealand 9.5

Nicaragua 5

Niger 4

Nigeria 4.5

Norway 9.5

Oman 7

Pakistan 3.5

Palau 7

Panama 7.5

Papua New Guinea 5

Paraguay 6.5-7

Peru 7

Philippines 6

Poland 8

Portugal 7.5

India Review 2016 Page 87 of 408 pages India

Qatar 7.5

Romania 5.5

Russia 5.5

Rwanda 5

Saint Kitts and Nevis 8

Saint Lucia 8

Saint Vincent and Grenadines 8

Samoa 7

San Marino 9

Sao Tome and Principe 5.5

Saudi Arabia 6

Senegal 6

Serbia 5

Seychelles 7

Sierra Leone 4.5

Singapore 9

Slovak Republic (Slovakia) 8

Slovenia 8

India Review 2016 Page 88 of 408 pages India

Solomon Islands 6

Somalia 2

South Africa 7

Spain 7.5

Sri Lanka 5

Sudan 3.5

Suriname 5

Swaziland 5

Sweden 9.5

Switzerland 9.5

Syria 2

Tajikistan 4.5

Tanzania 6

Thailand 6.5

Togo 4.5

Tonga 7

Trinidad and Tobago 8

Tunisia 6

India Review 2016 Page 89 of 408 pages India

Turkey 7

Turkmenistan 4.5

Tuvalu 7

Uganda 6

Ukraine 3.5-4

United Arab Emirates 7

United Kingdom 9

United States 9.5

Uruguay 8

Uzbekistan 4

Vanuatu 7

Venezuela 4

Vietnam 5

Yemen 3

Zambia 4.5

Zimbabwe 3

*Methodology

The Political Risk Index is calculated by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on the

India Review 2016 Page 90 of 408 pages India combined scoring of varied criteria as follows --

1. political stability (record of peaceful transitions of power, ability of government to stay in office and carry out policies as a result of productive executive-legislative relationship, perhaps with popular support vis a vis risk of government collapse)

2. political representation (right of suffrage, free and fair elections, multi-party participation, and influence of foreign powers)

3. democratic accountability (record of respect for political rights, human rights, and civil liberties, backed by constitutional protections)

4. freedom of expression (media freedom and freedom of expression, right to dissent or express political opposition, backed by constitutional protections)

5. security and crime (the degree to which a country has security mechanisms that ensures safety of citizens and ensures law and order, without resorting to extra-judicial measures)

6. risk of conflict (the presence of conflict; record of coups or civil disturbances; threat of war; threats posed by internal or external tensions; threat or record of terrorism or insurgencies)

7. human development (quality of life; access to education; socio-economic conditions; systemic concern for the status of women and children)

8. jurisprudence and regulatory transparency (the impartiality of the legal system, the degree of transparency within the regulatory system of a country and the durability of that structure)

9. economic conditions (economic stability, investment climate, degree of nationalization of industries, property rights, labor force development)

10. corruption ( the degree of corruption in a country and/or efforts by the government to address graft and other irregularities)

Editor's Note:

As of 2015, the current climate of upheaval internationally -- both politically and economically -- has affected the ratings for several countries across the world.

North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Zimbabwe -- retain their low rankings.

India Review 2016 Page 91 of 408 pages India

Several Middle Eastern and North African countries, such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen were downgraded in recent years due to political instability occurring in the "season of unrest" sweeping the region since 2011 and continuing today. The worst downgrades affected Syria where civil war is at play, along with the rampage of terror being carried out by Islamist terrorists who have also seized control over part of Syrian territory. Iraq has been further downgraded due to the rampage of Islamist terrorists and their takeover of wide swaths of Iraqi territory. Libya has also been downgraded further due to its slippage into failed state status; at issue in Libya have been an ongoing power struggle between rival militias. Yemen continues to hold steady with a poor ranking due to continued unrest at the hands of Houthi rebels, secessinionists, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, and Islamic State. Its landscape has been further complicated by the fact that it is now the site of a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Conversely, Tunisia and Egypt have seen slight upgrades as these countries stabilize.

In Africa, Zimbabwe continues to be one of the bleak spots of the world with the Mugabe regime effectively destroying the country's once vibrant economy, and miring Zimbabwe with an exceedingly high rate of inflation, debilitating unemployment, devolving public services, and critical food shortages; rampant crime and political oppression round out the landscape. Somalia also sports a poor ranking due to the continuing influence of the terror group, al-Shabab, which was not operating across the border in Kenya. On the upside, Nigeria, which was ineffectively dealing with the threat posed by the terror group, Boko Haram, was making some strides on the national security front with its new president at the helm. Mali was slightly upgraded due to its efforts to return to constitutional order following the 2012 coup and to neutralize the threat of separatists and Islamists. But the Central African Republic was downgraded due to the takeover of the government by Muslim Seleka rebels and a continued state of lawlessness in that country. South Sudan -- the world's newest nation state -- has not been officially included in this assessment; however, it can be unofficially assessed to be in the vicinity of "3" due to its manifold political and economic challenges. Burkina Faso, Burundi and Guinea have been downgraded due to political unrest, with Guinea also having to deal with the burgeoning Ebola crisis.

In Europe, Ukraine was downgraded due to the unrest facing that country following its Maidan revolution that triggered a pro-Russian uprising in the eastern part of the country. Russia was also implicated in the Ukrainian crisis due to its intervention on behalf of pro-Russian separatists, as well as its annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Strains on the infrastructure of southern and eastern European countries, such as Serbia, Croatia, and Hungary, due to an influx of refugees was expected to pose social and economic challenges, and slight downgrades were made accordingly. So too, a corruption crisis for the Romanian prime minister has affected the ranking of that country. Meanwhile, the rankings for Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy were maintained due to debt woes and the concomitant effect on the euro zone. Greece, another euro zone nation, was earlier downgraded due to its sovereign debt crisis; however, no further downgrade was added since the country was able to successfully forge a bailout rescue deal with creditor institutions. Cyprus' exposure to Greek banks yielded a downgrade in its case.

India Review 2016 Page 92 of 408 pages India

In Asia, Nepal was downgraded in response to continuous political instability and a constitutional crisis that prevails well after landmark elections were held. Both India and China retain their rankings; India holds a slightly higher ranking than China due to its record of democratic representation and accountability. Increasing violence and political instability in Pakistan resulted in a downgrade for this country's already low rating. Meanwhile, Singapore retained its strong rankings due to its continued effective stewardship of the economy and political stability.

In the Americas, ongoing political and economic woes, as well as crime and corruption have affected the rankings for Mexico , Guatemala, and Brazil. Argentina was downgraded due to its default on debt following the failure of talks with bond holders. Venezuela was downgraded due to its mix of market unfriendly policies and political oppression. For the moment, the United States maintains a strong ranking along with Canada, and most of the English-speaking countries of the Caribbean; however, a renewed debt ceiling crisis could cause the United States to be downgraded in a future edition. Finally, a small but significant upgrade was attributed to Cuba due to its recent pro-business reforms and its normalization of ties with the Unitd States.

Source:

Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com

Updated:

2015

Political Stability

Political Stability

The Political Stability Index is a proprietary index measuring a country's level of stability, standard of good governance, record of constitutional order, respect for human rights, and overall strength of democracy. The Political StabilityIndex is calculated using an established methodology* by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on a given country's record of peaceful transitions of power, ability of a government to stay in office and carry out its policies vis a vis risk credible risks of government collapse. Threats include coups, domestic violence and instability, terrorism, etc. This index measures the dynamic between the quality of a country's government

India Review 2016 Page 93 of 408 pages India and the threats that can compromise and undermine stability. Scores are assigned from 0-10 using the aforementioned criteria. A score of 0 marks the lowest level of political stability and an ultimate nadir, while a score of 10 marks the highest level of political stability possible, according to this proprietary index. Rarely will there be scores of 0 or 10 due to the reality that countries contain complex landscapes; as such, the index offers a range of possibilities ranging from lesser to greater stability.

Country Assessment

Afghanistan 2

Albania 4.5-5

Algeria 5

Andorra 9.5

Angola 4.5-5

Antigua 8.5-9

Argentina 7

Armenia 5.5

Australia 9.5

Austria 9.5

Azerbaijan 5

Bahamas 9

Bahrain 6

India Review 2016 Page 94 of 408 pages India

Bangladesh 4.5

Barbados 9

Belarus 4

Belgium 9

Belize 8

Benin 5

Bhutan 5

Bolivia 6

Bosnia-Herzegovina 5

Botswana 8.5

Brazil 7

Brunei 8

Bulgaria 7.5

Burkina Faso 4

Burma (Myanmar) 4.5

Burundi 4

Cambodia 4.5-5

Cameroon 6

India Review 2016 Page 95 of 408 pages India

Canada 9.5

Cape Verde 6

Central African Republic 3

Chad 4.5

Chile 9

China 7

China: Hong Kong 8

China: Taiwan 8

Colombia 7.5

Comoros 5

Congo DRC 3

Congo RC 5

Costa Rica 9.5

Cote d'Ivoire 3.5

Croatia 7.5

Cuba 4.5

Cyprus 8

Czech Republic 8.5

India Review 2016 Page 96 of 408 pages India

Denmark 9.5

Djibouti 5

Dominica 8.5

Dominican Republic 7

East Timor 5

Ecuador 7

Egypt 4.5-5

El Salvador 7.5-8

Equatorial Guinea 4.5

Eritrea 4

Estonia 9

Ethiopia 4.5

Fiji 5

Finland 9

Fr.YugoslavRep.Macedonia 6.5

France 9

Gabon 5

Gambia 4.5

India Review 2016 Page 97 of 408 pages India

Georgia 5

Germany 9.5

Ghana 7

Greece 6

Grenada 8.5

Guatemala 7

Guinea 3.5-4

Guinea-Bissau 4

Guyana 6

Haiti 3.5-4

Holy See (Vatican) 9.5

Honduras 6

Hungary 7.5

Iceland 9

India 8

Indonesia 7

Iran 3.5

Iraq 2.5

India Review 2016 Page 98 of 408 pages India

Ireland 9.5

Israel 8

Italy 8.5-9

Jamaica 8

Japan 9

Jordan 6

Kazakhstan 6

Kenya 5

Kiribati 8

Korea, North 2

Korea, South 8.5

Kosovo 5.5

Kuwait 7

Kyrgyzstan 5

Laos 5

Latvia 8.5

Lebanon 5.5

Lesotho 5

India Review 2016 Page 99 of 408 pages India

Liberia 3.5-4

Libya 2

Liechtenstein 9

Lithuania 9

Luxembourg 9.5

Madagascar 4

Malawi 5

Malaysia 8

Maldives 4.5-5

Mali 4.5-5

Malta 9

Marshall Islands 8

Mauritania 6

Mauritius 8

Mexico 6.5-7

Micronesia 8

Moldova 5.5

Monaco 9.5

India Review 2016 Page 100 of 408 pages India

Mongolia 6.5-7

Montenegro 8

Morocco 7

Mozambique 5

Namibia 8.5

Nauru 8

Nepal 4.5

Netherlands 9.5

New Zealand 9.5

Nicaragua 6

Niger 4.5

Nigeria 4.5

Norway 9.5

Oman 7

Pakistan 3

Palau 8

Panama 8.5

Papua New Guinea 6

India Review 2016 Page 101 of 408 pages India

Paraguay 8

Peru 7.5

Philippines 6

Poland 9

Portugal 9

Qatar 7

Romania 7

Russia 6

Rwanda 5

Saint Kitts and Nevis 9

Saint Lucia 9

Saint Vincent and Grenadines 9

Samoa 8

San Marino 9.5

Sao Tome and Principe 7

Saudi Arabia 6

Senegal 7.5

Serbia 6.5

India Review 2016 Page 102 of 408 pages India

Seychelles 8

Sierra Leone 4.5

Singapore 9.5

Slovak Republic (Slovakia) 8.5

Slovenia 9

Solomon Islands 6.5-7

Somalia 2

South Africa 7.5

Spain 9

Sri Lanka 5

Sudan 3

Suriname 5

Swaziland 5

Sweden 9.5

Switzerland 9.5

Syria 2

Tajikistan 4.5

Tanzania 6

India Review 2016 Page 103 of 408 pages India

Thailand 6

Togo 5

Tonga 7

Trinidad and Tobago 8

Tunisia 5

Turkey 7.5

Turkmenistan 5

Tuvalu 8.5

Uganda 6

Ukraine 3.5-4

United Arab Emirates 7

United Kingdom 9

United States 9

Uruguay 8.5

Uzbekistan 4

Vanuatu 8.5

Venezuela 4.5-5

Vietnam 4.5

India Review 2016 Page 104 of 408 pages India

Yemen 2.5

Zambia 5

Zimbabwe 3

*Methodology

The Political Stability Index is calculated by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on the combined scoring of varied criteria as follows --

1. record of peaceful transitions of power ( free and fair elections; adherence to political accords)

2. record of democratic representation, presence of instruments of democracy; systemic accountability

3. respect for human rights; respect for civil rights

4. strength of the system of jurisprudence, adherence to constitutional order, and good governance

5. ability of a government to stay in office and carry out its policies vis a vis risk credible risks of government collapse (i.e. government stability versus a country being deemed "ungovernable")

6. threat of coups, insurgencies, and insurrection

7. level of unchecked crime and corruption

8. risk of terrorism and other threats to national security

9. relationship with regional powers and international community; record of bilateral or multilateral cooperation

10. degree of economic strife (i.e. economic and financial challenges)

Editor's Note:

As of 2015, the current climate of upheaval internationally -- both politically and economically --

India Review 2016 Page 105 of 408 pages India has affected the ratings for several countries across the world. The usual suspects -- North Korea, Afghanistan, and Somalia -- retain their low rankings. The reclusive and ultra-dictatorial North Korean regime, which has terrified the world with its nuclear threats, has exhibited internal instability. Of note was a cut-throat purge of hundreds of high ranking officials deemed to be a threat to Kim Jung-un. Despite their attempts to recover from years of lawlessness, war, and warlordism, both Afghanistan and Somalia continue to be beset by terrorism and turmoil. In Afghanistan, while international forces have seen success in the effort against the terror group, al- Qaida, the other Islamist extremist group, the Taliban, continues to carry out a vicious insurgency using terrorism. In Somalia, while the government attempts to do the nation's business, the terror group, al-Shabab continues to make its presence known not only in Somalia, but across the border into Kenya with devastating results/ Also in this category is Iraq, which continues to be rocked by horrific violence and terrorism at the hands of Islamic State, which has taken over wide swaths of Iraqi territory.

Syria, Libya, and Yemen have been added to this unfortunate echelon of the world's most politically unstable countries. Syria has been mired by the twin hazards of 1. a civil war as rebels oppose the Assad regime; and 2. the rampage of terror being carried out by Islamic State, which also seized control over vast portions of Syrian territory. Meanwhile, the post-Qaddhafi landscape of Libya has devolved into chaos as rival militias battle for control -- the elected government of the country notwithstanding. Rounding out this grim triad is Yemen, which was dealing with a Houthi rebellion, secesionists in the south, as well as the threat of terrorism from al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula as well as Islamic State, while also being the site of a proxy war between Shi'a Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, several Middle Eastern and North African countries, such as Tunisia, Egypt, and Bahrain were downgraded in recent years due to political instability occurring in the "season of unrest" sweeping the region since 2011 and continuing today. All three of these countries have stabilized in recent years and have been upgraded accordingly. In Bahrain, the landscape had calmed. In Egypt, the secular military-backed government has generated criticism for its crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood; however, the country had ratified the presidency via democratic elections and were on track to hold parliamentary elections as the country moved along the path of democratization. Perhaps the most impressive story was coming out of Tunisia -- the country whose Jasmine Revolution sparked the entire Arab Spring -- and where after a few years of strife, a new progressive constitution was passed into law and a secular government had been elected to power. Tunisia, Egypt, and Bahrain have seen slight upgrades as these countries stabilize.

In Africa, the Central African Republic was downgraded the previous year due to the takeover of the government by Muslim Seleka rebels. Although the country has been trying to emerge from this crisis, the fact of the matter was that it was difficult to halt the precipitous decline into lawlessness in that country. Zimbabwe has maintained its consistently poor ranking due to the

India Review 2016 Page 106 of 408 pages India dictatorial regime of Mugabe, who continues to hold a tight grip on power, intimidates the opposition, squashes dissent, and oppresses the white farmer population of the country. Moving in a slightly improved direction is Nigeria, which has sported abysmal ratings due to the government's fecklessness in dealing with the threat posed by the Islamist terror group, Boko Haram. Under its newly-elected government, there appears to be more of a concerted effort to make national security a priority action item. Mali was also slightly upgraded due to its efforts to return to constitutional order following the 2012 coup and to neutralize the threat of separatists and Islamists. Political instability has visited Burkina Faso and Burundi as the leaders of those countries attempted to side-step constitutional limits to hold onto power. In Burundi, an attempted coup ensued but quelled, and the president won a (questionable) new term in office; unrest has since punctuated the landscape. In Burkina Faso, the political climate has turned stormy as a result of a successful coup that ended the rule of the president, and then a putsch against the transitional government. These two African countries have been downgraded as a result.

It should be noted that the African country of South Sudan -- the world's newest nation state -- has not been officially included in this assessment; however, it can be unofficially assessed to be in the vicinity of "3" due to its manifold political and economic challenges. Guinea has endured poor rankings throughout, but was slightly downgraded further over fears of social unrest and the Ebola heath crisis.

In Europe, Ukraine was downgraded due to the unrest facing that country following its Maidan revolution that triggered a pro-Russian uprising in the eastern part of the country. Russia was also implicated in the Ukrainian crisis due to its intervention on behalf of pro-Russian separatists, as well as its annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Serbia and Albania were slightly downgraded due to eruptions of unrest, while Romania was slightly downgraded on the basis of corruption charges against the prime minister. Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy were downgraded due to debt woes and the concomitant effect on the euro zone. Greece, another euro zone nation, was downgraded the previous year due to its sovereign debt crisis; however, the country successfully forged a rescue deal with international creditors and stayed within the Euro zone. Greek voters rewarded the hitherto unknown upstart party at the polls for these efforts. As a result, Greece was actually upgraded slightly as it proved to the world that it could endure the political and economic storms. Meanwhile, Germany, France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries continue to post impressive ranking consistent with these countries' strong records of democracy, freedom, and peaceful transfers of power.

In Asia, Nepal was downgraded in response to continuous political instability well after landmark elections that prevails today. Cambodia was very slighly downgraded due to post-election instability that has resulted in occasional flares of violence. Despite the "trifecta of tragedy" in Japan in 2011 -- the earthquake, the ensuing tsunami, and the resulting nuclear crisis -- and the appreciable destabilization of the economic and political terrain therein, this country has only slightly been downgraded. Japan's challenges have been assessed to be transient, the government

India Review 2016 Page 107 of 408 pages India remains accountable, and there is little risk of default. Both India and China retain their rankings; India holds a slightly higher ranking than China due to its record of democratic representation and accountability. Increasing violence and political instability in Pakistan resulted in a downgrade for this country's already low rating.

In the Americas, Haiti retained its downgraded status due to ongoing political and economic woes. Mexico was downgraded due to its alarming rate of crime. Guatemala was downgraded due to charges of corruption, the arrest of the president, and uncertainty over the outcome of elections. Brazil was downgraded due to the corruption charges erupting on the political landscape, the stalling of the economy, and the increasingly loud calls for the impeachment of President Rousseff. Argentina was downgraded due to its default on debt following the failure of talks with bond holders. Venezuela was downgraded due to the fact that the country's post-Chavez government is every bit as autocratic and nationalistic, but even more inclined to oppress its political opponents. Colombia was upgraded slightly due to efforts aimed at securing a peace deal with the FARC insurgents. A small but significant upgrade was attributed to Cuba due to its recent pro-business reforms and its normalization of ties with the Unitd States. Meanwhile, the United States, Canada, Costa Rica, Panama, and most of the English-speaking countries of the Caribbean retain their strong rankings due to their records of stability and peaceful transfers of power.

In the Pacific, Fiji was upgraded due to its return to constitutional order and democracy with the holding of the first elections in eight years.

In Oceania, Maldives has been slightly downgraded due to the government's continued and rather relentless persecution of the country's former pro-democracy leader - former President Nasheed.

Source:

Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com

Updated:

2015

India Review 2016 Page 108 of 408 pages India

Freedom Rankings

Freedom Rankings

Freedom in the World

Editor's Note: This ranking by Freedom House quantifies political freedom and civil liberties into a single combined index on each sovereign country's level of freedom and liberty. The initials "PR" and "CL" stand for Political Rights and Civil Liberties, respectively. The number 1 represents the most free countries and the number 7 represents the least free. Several countries fall in the continuum in between. The freedom ratings reflect an overall judgment based on survey results.

Trend Country PR CL Freedom Status Arrow

Afghanistan 6 ? 6 Not Free

Albania* 3 3 Partly Free

Algeria 6 5 Not Free

Andorra* 1 1 Free

Angola 6 5 Not Free

Antigua and Barbuda* 3 ? 2 Free

Argentina* 2 2 Free

Armenia 6 4 Partly Free

Australia* 1 1 Free

Austria* 1 1 Free

India Review 2016 Page 109 of 408 pages India

Azerbaijan 6 5 Not Free

Bahamas* 1 1 Free

Bahrain 6 ? 5 Not Free ?

Bangladesh* 3 ? 4 Partly Free

Barbados* 1 1 Free

Belarus 7 6 Not Free

Belgium* 1 1 Free

Belize* 1 2 Free

Benin* 2 2 Free

Bhutan 4 5 Partly Free

Bolivia* 3 3 Partly Free

Bosnia-Herzegovina* 4 3 Partly Free

Botswana* 3 ? 2 Free

Brazil* 2 2 Free

Brunei 6 5 Not Free

Bulgaria* 2 2 Free

Burkina Faso 5 3 Partly Free

Burma 7 7 Not Free

India Review 2016 Page 110 of 408 pages India

Burundi* 4 5 Partly Free ⇑

Cambodia 6 5 Not Free ⇓

Cameroon 6 6 Not Free

Canada* 1 1 Free

Cape Verde* 1 1 Free

Central African Republic 5 5 Partly Free

Chad 7 6 Not Free

Chile* 1 1 Free

China 7 6 Not Free

Colombia* 3 4 Partly Free

Comoros* 3 4 Partly Free

Congo (Brazzaville ) 6 5 Not Free ⇓

Congo (Kinshasa) 6 6 Not Free ⇓

Costa Rica* 1 1 Free

Cote d’Ivoire 6 5 Not Free

Croatia* 1 ? 2 Free

Cuba 7 6 Not Free

Cyprus* 1 1 Free

India Review 2016 Page 111 of 408 pages India

Czech Republic* 1 1 Free

Denmark* 1 1 Free

Djibouti 5 5 Partly Free

Dominica* 1 1 Free

Dominican Republic* 2 2 Free ⇓

East Timor* 3 4 Partly Free

Ecuador* 3 3 Partly Free

Egypt 6 5 Not Free

El Salvador* 2 3 Free

Equatorial Guinea 7 7 Not Free

Eritrea 7 7 ? Not Free

Estonia* 1 1 Free

Ethiopia 5 5 Partly Free ⇓

Fiji 6 4 Partly Free

Finland* 1 1 Free

France* 1 1 Free

Gabon 6 5 ? Not Free ?

The Gambia 5 5 ? Partly Free

India Review 2016 Page 112 of 408 pages India

Georgia 4 4 Partly Free

Germany* 1 1 Free

Ghana* 1 2 Free

Greece* 1 2 Free

Grenada* 1 2 Free

Guatemala* 4 ? 4 Partly Free

Guinea 7 6 ? Not Free

Guinea-Bissau* 4 4 Partly Free

Guyana* 2 3 Free

Haiti* 4 5 Partly Free

Honduras 4 ? 4 ? Partly Free

Hungary* 1 1 Free

Iceland* 1 1 Free

India* 2 3 Free

Indonesia* 2 3 Free

Iran 6 6 Not Free ⇓

Iraq 5 ? 6 Not Free

Ireland* 1 1 Free

India Review 2016 Page 113 of 408 pages India

Israel* 1 2 Free

Italy* 1 2 Free

Jamaica* 2 3 Free

Japan* 1 2 Free

Jordan 6 ? 5 Not Free ?

Kazakhstan 6 5 Not Free ⇓

Kenya 4 4 ? Partly Free

Kiribati* 1 1 Free

Kosovo 5 ? 4 ? Partly Free ?

Kuwait 4 4 Partly Free

Kyrgyzstan 6 ? 5 ? Not Free ?

Laos 7 6 Not Free

Latvia* 2 1 Free

Lebanon 5 3 ? Partly Free

Lesotho* 3 ? 3 Partly Free ?

Liberia* 3 4 Partly Free

Libya 7 7 Not Free

Liechtenstein* 1 1 Free

India Review 2016 Page 114 of 408 pages India

Lithuania* 1 1 Free

Luxembourg* 1 1 Free

Macedonia* 3 3 Partly Free ⇑

Madagascar 6 ? 4 ? Partly Free

Malawi* 3 ? 4 Partly Free

Malaysia 4 4 Partly Free

Maldives* 3 ? 4 Partly Free

Mali* 2 3 Free

Malta* 1 1 Free ⇓

Marshall Islands* 1 1 Free

Mauritania 6 5 Not Free

Mauritius* 1 2 Free

Mexico* 2 3 Free

Micronesia* 1 1 Free

Moldova* 3 ? 4 Partly Free

Monaco* 2 1 Free

Mongolia* 2 2 Free ⇑

Montenegro* 3 2 ? Free ?

India Review 2016 Page 115 of 408 pages India

Morocco 5 4 Partly Free ⇓

Mozambique 4 ? 3 Partly Free

Namibia* 2 2 Free

Nauru* 1 1 Free

Nepal 4 4 Partly Free

Netherlands* 1 1 Free

New Zealand* 1 1 Free

Nicaragua* 4 4 ? Partly Free

Niger 5 ? 4 Partly Free

Nigeria 5 4 Partly Free ⇓

North Korea 7 7 Not Free ⇓

Norway* 1 1 Free

Oman 6 5 Not Free

Pakistan 4 5 Partly Free

Palau* 1 1 Free

Panama* 1 2 Free

Papua New Guinea* 4 3 Partly Free

Paraguay* 3 3 Partly Free

India Review 2016 Page 116 of 408 pages India

Peru* 2 3 Free

Philippines 4 3 Partly Free ⇓

Poland* 1 1 Free

Portugal* 1 1 Free

Qatar 6 5 Not Free

Romania* 2 2 Free

Russia 6 5 Not Free ⇓

Rwanda 6 5 Not Free

Saint Kitts and Nevis* 1 1 Free

Saint Lucia* 1 1 Free

Saint Vincent and

Grenadines* 2 1 Free

Samoa* 2 2 Free

San Marino* 1 1 Free

Sao Tome and Principe* 2 2 Free

Saudi Arabia 7 6 Not Free

Senegal* 3 3 Partly Free

Serbia* 2 ? 2 Free

Seychelles* 3 3 Partly Free

India Review 2016 Page 117 of 408 pages India

Sierra Leone* 3 3 Partly Free

Singapore 5 4 Partly Free

Slovakia* 1 1 Free ⇓

Slovenia* 1 1 Free

Solomon Islands 4 3 Partly Free

Somalia 7 7 Not Free

South Africa* 2 2 Free

South Korea* 1 2 Free

Spain* 1 1 Free

Sri Lanka* 4 4 Partly Free

Sudan 7 7 Not Free

Suriname* 2 2 Free

Swaziland 7 5 Not Free

Sweden* 1 1 Free

Switzerland* 1 1 Free ⇓

Syria 7 6 Not Free

Taiwan* 1 ? 2 ? Free

Tajikistan 6 5 Not Free

India Review 2016 Page 118 of 408 pages India

Tanzania 4 3 Partly Free

Thailand 5 4 Partly Free

Togo 5 4 ? Partly Free

Tonga 5 3 Partly Free

Trinidad and Tobago* 2 2 Free

Tunisia 7 5 Not Free

Turkey* 3 3 Partly Free ⇓

Turkmenistan 7 7 Not Free

Tuvalu* 1 1 Free

Uganda 5 4 Partly Free

Ukraine* 3 2 Free

United Arab Emirates 6 5 Not Free

United Kingdom* 1 1 Free

United States* 1 1 Free

Uruguay* 1 1 Free

Uzbekistan 7 7 Not Free

Vanuatu* 2 2 Free

Venezuela 5 ? 4 Partly Free

India Review 2016 Page 119 of 408 pages India

Vietnam 7 5 Not Free ⇓

Yemen 6 ? 5 Not Free ?

Zambia* 3 4 ? Partly Free

Zimbabwe 6 ? 6 Not Free

Methodology: PR and CL stand for political rights and civil liberties, respectively; 1 represents the most free and 7 the least free rating. The ratings reflect an overall judgment based on survey results.

? ? up or down indicates a change in political rights, civil liberties, or status since the last survey. ⇑ ⇓ up or down indicates a trend of positive or negative changes that took place but that were not sufficient to result in a change in political rights or civil liberties ratings of 1-7.

* indicates a country’s status as an electoral democracy.

Source:

This data is derived from the latest edition of Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2010 edition. Available at URL: http://www.freedomhouse.org

Updated:

Reviewed in 2015

Human Rights

Overview of Human Rights in India

The Republic of India is a multiparty, federal, parliamentary democracy. India has a mixed human

India Review 2016 Page 120 of 408 pages India rights record. While there have been improvement in some areas, there have also been reports of abuses.

Societal and governmental discrimination based on caste, social, and/or religious grounds continues despite new laws that are supposed to protect against it. Dalits, or those who perform the most menial and degrading of jobs in the nation, continue to face violence and discrimination. They are faced with harassment, police brutality, mutilations and killings if they attempt to cross caste barriers. The Adivasis, an indigenous people in India, are often misplaced due to the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. which the government still using to claim lands for development.

Members of the security forces continue to enjoy impunity for human rights violations. Laws, such as the National Security Act, the Disturbed Areas Act, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the Public Safety Act, and the Criminal Code of Procedure, allow security agents to be shielded from any legal accountability for many abuses committed. Torture, rape, beatings, and custodial killings fall under this umbrella of safety.

India has the highest population of working children in the world. Many of these work in the worst forms of child labor. While these children should be protected by child labor laws, due to reasons such as corruption, apathy or caste bias, the government chooses to ignore the plight of the children.

A recent estimate indicates that 5.1 million people live with HIV/AIDS in India. Many experts suggest this number is low and the actual nunber could be as high as ten million. Those living with this disease face stigmatization and discrimination. They are also denied employment and access to education and healthcare.

While India is home to a generally free press, the government occasionally limits this freedom. As well, freedom of movement is occasionally hindered.

Authorities sometimes harass human rights activists.

Since 2003, there has been a tentative cease-fire along the Line of Control in Kashmir. However, terrorism-related violence inside of Indian-controlled Kashmir continues. Bomb and grenade attacks on civilians and on moderate Kashmir leaders hinder the peace process. Since the insurgency began in 1989, thousands of people have disappeared and most are presumed dead.

Thousands of Burmese seek refugee in India each year in order to escape the Burmese military government. However, many are turned back or if allowed to stay, are not granted proper protections under the law.

Terrorism by Islamic militants and Maoists in various regions of India has been a serious problem in recent years, with civilians being the victims in most cases.

India Review 2016 Page 121 of 408 pages India

Human Development Index (HDI) Rank:

See Social Overview of Country Review for full listing of rankings for all countries.

Human Poverty Index Rank:

58th out of 103

Gini Index:

32.5

Life Expectancy at Birth (years):

69.25 years

Unemployment Rate:

8.9%

Population living on $1 a day (%):

34.7%

Population living on $2 a day (%):

79.9%

Population living beneath the Poverty Line (%):

36.3%

Internally Displaced People:

1,100,000

Note-Some 160,000 refugees from China/Tibet, Sri Lanka, and Afghanistan are currently seeking asylum in India

Total Crime Rate (%):

30.7%

India Review 2016 Page 122 of 408 pages India

Health Expenditure (% of GDP):

Public: 1.3%

% of GDP Spent on Education:

4.1%

Human Rights Conventions Party to:

• International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide • International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women • Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Signed but not yet ratified) • Conventions on the Rights of the Child

*Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite index that measures the level of well-being in 177 nations in the world. It uses factors such as poverty, literacy, life-expectancy, education, gross domestic product, and purchasing power parity to assess the average achievements in each nation. It has been used in the United Nation’s Human Development Report since 1993.

*Human Poverty Index Ranking is based on certain indicators used to calculate the Human Poverty Index. Probability at birth of not surviving to age 40, adult literacy rate, population without sustainable access to an improved water source, and population below income poverty line are the indicators assessed in this measure.

*The Gini Index measures inequality based on the distribution of family income or consumption. A value of 0 represents perfect equality (income being distributed equally), and a value of 100 perfect inequality (income all going to one individual).

*The calculation of the total crime rate is the % of the total population which has been effected by property crime, robbery, sexual assault, assault, or bribery (corruption) related occurrences.

India Review 2016 Page 123 of 408 pages India

Government Functions

Constitution

According to its constitution of 1950, India is a "sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic." Similar to the United States, India has a federal form of government. The central government in India, however, has greater power in relation to its states, and its central government is patterned after the British parliamentary system.

Executive Power

The government exercises its broad administrative powers in the name of the president, whose duties are largely ceremonial. A special electoral college elects the president and vice president indirectly for five-year terms. Their terms are staggered, and the vice president takes over the duties of the president following the death or removal from office of the incumbent.

Real national executive power is centered in the Council of Ministers (cabinet), led by the prime minister. The president appoints the prime minister, who is designated by legislators of the political party or coalition commanding a parliamentary majority. The president then appoints subordinate ministers on the advice of the prime minister.

Legislative Power

India's bicameral parliament consists of the Rajya Sabha (Council or House of the States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People or People's Assembly). The Council of Ministers (including the prime minister) is responsible to the Lok Sabha and must retain the support of a majority of the members of the Lok Sabha to remain in office.

The legislatures of the states and union territories elect members to the Rajya Sabha. There should be no more than 250 in total. Up to 12 of members of the total are appointed by the president, the remainder are chosen by the elected members of the state and territorial assemblies; members serve six-year terms). The elected members of the Rajya Sabha serve six-year terms, with one- third up for election every two years. The Lok Sabha consists of 545 members; 543 are directly elected to five-year terms. The remaining two are appointed to represent the Anglo-Indian community.

India Review 2016 Page 124 of 408 pages India

Judicial Power

India's independent judicial system began under the British, and its concepts and procedures resemble those of Anglo-Saxon countries. The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and 25 other judges, all appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister.

Administration and State Government

India has 29 states and 7 union territories.

The president appoints a governor of each state who may assume certain broad powers during state government crises. The central government exerts greater control over the union territories than over the states, although some territories have gained substantial autonomy.

Centralization and Decentralization in Government

The powers of the state and central government have been clearly delineated by the constitution. There is a list where the two governments share powers. Over the last 50 years, India has seen increasing decentralization, with more and more power passing from New Delhi to the states. India has also seen reorganization of its states several times since independence, leading to smaller, more manageable states. The first such reorganization took place in the late 1950s which saw creation of states on the linguistic basis. This was followed by similar moves in the 1960s and 1970s. Another move came in September 2000 when the Parliament approved the creation of three new states.

Local Authority

Even beyond the states, the Indian democracy can be seen at work at the village level, through Panchayati Raj (rule of the Panchayat or village councils). Though Panchayats have existed in India since times immemorial, they were officially recognized soon after independence and their powers were dramatically increased in 1985 through a special act that saw a far greater devolution of power right to the villages, especially linked to social, health, educational and developmental issues. Several states have since held elections under the new Act, thus transferring real power to the village level. In fact, so successful has been the Indian experiment in local governance that even leading western groups like the European Union have sought to learn from the Indian experience in decentralizing their own governance.

India Review 2016 Page 125 of 408 pages India

Government Structure

Names: conventional long form: Republic of India Conventional short form: India local long form: Republic of India/Bharatiya Ganarajya local short form: India/Bharat

Type: Federal republic; democratic process; mixed presidential-parliamentary system

Executive Branch: Chief of State: Pres. Pranab Mukherjee (as of 2012). The president is elected for a five-year term by an electoral college consisting of elected members from both houses of the "Sansad" (Parliament) and the legislatures of the states. See "Election Primer" below.

Primer on 2012 Presidential Election in India: July 19, 2012 --

An (indirect) presidential election was scheduled to be held in India on July 19, 2012. In India, the president is the titular head of state (distinct from the prime minister who is the head of government), and is elected for a five-year term by an electoral college consisting of elected members from both houses of the "Sansad" (Parliament) and the legislatures of the states.

In 2012, the major contenders for the presidency were Pranab Mukherjee, of the ruling United Progressive Alliance party, and P.A. Sangma, a former speaker of the Indian parliament and the candidate of the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance.

All expectations were that Mukherjee would secure the presidency, given the ruling party's dominance in parliament, whose votes are crucial to the outcome of the election. Indeed, with the

India Review 2016 Page 126 of 408 pages India votes counted it was Mukherjee who emerged victorious. According to the independent Election Commission Mukherjee secured an overwhelming victory having won more than 558,000 votes against 240,000 votes by Sangma. Accordingly, Mukherjee was set to be sworn into office as India's new president on July 25, 2012.

Head of Government: Prime Minister Narendra Modi (since 2014). The prime minister is formally appointed by the president and was elected by the members of the majority party in parliament following previous legislative elections. See "Primer" below for background information related to 2014 parliamentary elections.

Note on head of goverment: Narendra Modi of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) claimed victory following the 2014 elections and became India's new prime minister succeeding Manoman Singh of the Congress Party.

Note on parliamentary elections: In May 2014, India completed its general elections. See "Legislative Branch" below for details about the election results. Also see below for details related to the 2014 elections.

Cabinet: Council of Ministers; appointed by the president, based on the recommendation of the prime minister

Note on cabinet: The government (Prime Minister and Council of Ministers) is responsible to the Lok Sabha (House of the People or People's Assembly) and must maintain the support of a majority of its members to remain in office.

Legislative Branch: Bicameral "Sansad" (Parliament): Consists of the "Rajya Sabha" (Council or House of the States) and the "Lok Sabha" (House of the People or People's Assembly)

"Rajya Sabha" (Council or House of the States): At present, 245 members; 233 elected by the members of the state and territorial assemblies, 12 appointed by the president; elected members serve six-year terms; one-third of elected members stand for (re-)election every two years. The "Rajya Sabha" may not exceed 250 members.

"Lok Sabha" (House of the People or People's Assembly):

India Review 2016 Page 127 of 408 pages India

545 members; 543 elected by popular vote to serve five-year terms, two appointed by the Indian president to represent the Anglo-Indian community

Primer on 2014 Elections of "Lok Sabha" or People's Assembly: April 7 to May 12, 2014 --

Parliamentary elections were expected to be held in India on a phased basis from April 7, 2014, to May 12, 2014. At stake would be control over the parliament. In India, the legislative branch of government is the bicameral "Sansad" (Parliament), which consists of the "Rajya Sabha" (Council or House of the States) and the "Lok Sabha" (House of the People or People's Assembly). In regards to control over the government, the action would be in the "Lok Sabha" (House of the People or People's Assembly), composed of 545 members; members are elected by popular vote to serve five-year terms.

Typically, the leader of the largest party or bloc in parliament leads the government as the prime minister; he/she is expected to maintain support of the majority in this lower house of parliament.

Note that in the previous elections of 2009, outgoing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Congress party won the most seats in the lower house over the opposing nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Pre-polling data for 2014 indicated a reveral of fortune for both parties was in the offing. See "Background" below for details.

Background on 2014 elections --

In January 2014, India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced his retirement, saying he did not intend to continue on as head of government, even if his Congress Party won the next elections, which were expected to be held by mid-2014. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who has served as head of government for more than a decade and who has generally been viewed as an effective steward of India's economy, made note of his administration's success, saying, "An array of historical legislations has been enacted to make the work of the government transparent and accountable." He also defended his political legacy, pointing to his government's efforts on behalf of the poor and on behalf of farmers, while also emphasizing that his government had "transformed the education landscape of the country."

Looking to the future, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared: "In a few months time, after the general election, I will hand the baton over to a new prime minister." Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed confidence that his Congress Party would again secure victory (having won the previous 2004 and 2009 elections), and so that new prime minister would be from his party. Still, the prime minister made it clear that his time at the helm was over, saying, "I have ruled myself out as a prime ministerial candidate." The prime minister also made note of the fact that there was a

India Review 2016 Page 128 of 408 pages India crop of youthful party leaders that should have a chance in the limelight, noting that Rahul Gandhi -- son of Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Congress Party -- possessed the kind of credentials worthy of being nominated as the party's candidate. Speaking of the need to turn power over to the younger generation, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said: "I am confident that the new generation of our leaders will also guide this great nation successfully through the uncharted and uncertain waters of global change."

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had harsh words for the opposition nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which saw success in local elections in key states in recent time. The outgoing prime minister emphasized the importance of defeating the BJP in the national elections and vociferously asserted that it would be "disastrous for the country" if opposition leader, Narendra Modi, were elected as prime minister. Referring to the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in 2002 that left more than 1,000 people dead in the western state of Gujarat where Modi was chief minister, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh disparaged the notion of the prime minister’s office being held by Modi. He declared, "Someone who presided over the massacre of innocent people should not be the prime minister."

By the middle of January 2014, after a meeting of senior party officials, Rahul Gandhi -- whom outgoing Prime Minister Singh had referenced as a worthy example of the party's crop of young leaders -- was named as the individual to lead the Congress party into the next elections. Of course it should be noted there was no confirmation that Rahul Gandhi would actually be the party's candidate for prime minister. As noted by the president of the Congress Party, Sonia Gandhi, it was not traditional practice to announce a prime ministerial candidate ahead of the elections.

Rahul Gandhi was certainly a natural successor to the helm of leadership of the historic Congress Party. Indeed, the Gandhi family has long been viewed as India's premier political dynasty and certainly as the "caretakers" of sorts of India's Congress Party. Rahul Gandhi was the great- grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru -- India's first prime minister after independence from the United Kingdom and an icon of Indian politics for much of the 20th century. Rahul Gandhi was also the grandson of Indira Gandhi (no relation to Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi) -- a trail blazer as India's first female head of government. Rahul Gandhi’s father was Rajiv Gandhi who also served as prime minister of India. After the assassination of his mother, Indira Gandhi at the hands of Sikh extremists, Rajiv Gandhi became head of government; but he also suffered a tragic fate having himself been assassinated -- this time by Tamil extremists. Rajiv Gandhi's widow -- an Italian national, Sonia Gandhi -- subsequently became the head of the Congress Party. Rahul Gandhi -- the son of assassinated Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi -- entered the political arena himself and became the Congress Party's vice president. As discussed here, in January 2014, he was announced as the person who would lead the Congress Party in the next elections.

India Review 2016 Page 129 of 408 pages India

It should be noted that the Congress Party itself was suffering from lagging approval, due to a combination of economic sluggishness, inflation, and corruption allegations. In fact, polls showed the rival nationalist BJP (mentioned above) with the advantage at the start of 2014. The newly- formed anti-corruption Aam Admi Party was also attracting a following that could detract from the Congress Party's goal of holding onto power by splitting the anti-BJP vote share. Election victory for the BJP over the Congress Party would likely propel the controversial party leader, Modi, into the position of head of government. Such a development could well spark sectarian dissonance in India, given Modi's role in the anti-Muslim riots of 2002.

With the Congress Party likely anticipating defeat at the forthcoming polls, and with an eye on protecting the long-term image of the young Gandhi whose career in the public sphere was only just beginning, the incumbent ruling party made the political calculation not to set up the forthcoming contest as a battle between Modi and Gandhi.

The Election

With the Indian election set to commence on April 7, 2014, it was apparent that polling data was coinciding with the general perception that the BJP was set to clinch victory and its Hindu nationalist leader, Modi, was on track to become India's next prime minister.

As the 2014 elections began, polling data reported by the news channel, CNN-IBN, and Lokniti at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies said the BJP was likely to capture 38 percent of the vote share, with the ruling Congress Party-led alliance would likely take 28 percent of the vote share. This would translate into a clear majority in parliamentary seats for the BJP and its allies over the Congress Party-led alliance of parties.

By mid-April 2014, with phased voting well underway, fresh polling by the NDTV news channel showed the BJP headed for victory but with a narrow majority of parliamentary seats.

At the start of May 2014, before the phased voting process was complete, polling data continued to suggest that Modi and the BJP were headed for victory, effectively displacing the Congress party- led government from power. That being said, there were signs that while Modi, the BJP, and its allies would garner a plurality of the vote share, it might fall short of an outright majority. Meanwhile, turnout was reported to be high and marked by the increased participation of younger and first-time voters, as well as women.

By May 12, 2014, with the phased voting process complete, exit poll data indicated that Modi and the BJP were on track for victory. Several different polling outfits were offering estimates of the BJP victory, suggesting the party would carry anything from 250 to 285 (273 would be needed for outright majority). The Congress Party was expected to carry only about 100 seats. Should this exit poll data prove predictive, Modi was set to become India's new prime minister.

India Review 2016 Page 130 of 408 pages India

It should be noted that polling data in India is notorious for being inaccurate and, indeed, failed to measure the Congress Party's margin of victory in 2009. Of course, no official election results would be available until later in the month (May 2014). To that end, on May 16, 2014, the Congress Party officially conceded defeat to the BJP. A triumphant Modi -- the son of a tea stall owner -- would likely take the reins of power as India's new prime minister and would have strong parliamentary support to set the political agenda in India. Indeed, the BJP was on course to secure 282 seats in the 543 seat legislative body -- a clear and convincing victory and the first majority government in India after 25 years of coalitions. It was a mandate from the voters that India was ready for change.

Not one to claim victory graciously, Modi lashed out at the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty that has dominated Indian politics since independence, declaring: "Four to five generations have been wasted since 1952, this victory has been achieved after that." Modi continued by looking towards his political agenda as he said, "I am confident about the future of India... I firmly believe that the emergence of India as a major powerhouse of the evolving global economy is an idea whose time has come."

Meanwhile, within the Congress Party, both Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi said they would step down from their leadership posts in the aftermath of the party's crushing defeat at the polls. However, insiders refused to accept their respective resignation offers and, instead, called on Sonia Gandhi to reform the Congress Party. This move indicated that there was no desire by the party to sever its historic bonds with the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. It was to be seen if Sonia Gandhi’s daughter, Priyanka Gandhi, would play a more prominent role in to future Congress Party.

Judicial Branch: Supreme Court; chief justice and 25 additional judges formally appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister; judges remain in office until the age of 65

Constitution: Jan. 26, 1950; amended many times

Legal System: Based on English common law; limited judicial review of legislative acts; accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, with reservations; separate personal law codes apply to Muslims, Christians, and Hindus

India Review 2016 Page 131 of 408 pages India

Administrative Divisions: 29 states and 7 union territories*; Andaman and Nicobar Islands*, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chandigarh*, Chhattisgarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli*, Daman and Diu*, Delhi*, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep*, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Puducherry*, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal

Note on administrative divisions: Although its status is that of a union territory, the official name of Delhi is National Capital Territory of Delhi

Political Parties: Aam Aadmi Party or AAP [Arvind KEJRIWAL] All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam or AIADMK [J. JAYALALITHAA] All India Trinamool Congress or AITC [Mamata BANERJEE] Bahujan Samaj Party or BSP [MAYAWATI] Bharatiya Janata Party or BJP [Amit SHAH] Biju Janata Dal or BJD [Naveen PATNAIK] Communist Party of India-Marxist or CPI(M) [Prakash KARAT] Indian National Congress or INC [Sonia GANDHI] Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) [Ram Vilas PASWAN] Nationalist Congress Party or NCP [Sharad PAWAR] Rashtriya Janata Dal or RJD [Lalu Prasad YADAV] Samajwadi Party or SP [Mulayam Singh YADAV] Shiromani Akali Dal or SAD [Parkash Singh BADAL] Shiv Sena or SS [Uddhav THACKERAY] Telegana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) [K. Chandrashekar RAO] Telugu Desam Party or TDP [Chandrababu NAIDU] YSR Congress(YSRC) [Jaganmohan REDDY]

Pressure Groups: Numerous religious or militant/chauvinistic organizations, including Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal, and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh; various separatist groups seeking greater communal and/or regional autonomy, including the All Parties Hurriyat Conference in the Kashmir Valley and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland in the Northeast

Suffrage:

India Review 2016 Page 132 of 408 pages India

18 years of age; universal

Principal Government Officials

Leadership and Cabinet of India

Pres. Pranab MUKHERJEE Vice Pres. Mohammad Hamid ANSARI Prime Min. Narendra MODI National Security Adviser Ajit Kumar DOVAL Min. of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Radha Mohan SINGH Min. of Chemicals & Fertilizers Ananth KUMAR Min. of Civil Aviation Ashok Gajapathi Raju PUSAPATI Min. of Communications & Information Technology Ravi Shankar PRASAD Min. of Consumer Affairs, Food, & Public Distribution Ramvilas PASWAN Min. of Corporate Affairs Arun JAITLEY Min. of Defense Manohar PARRIKAR Min. of Drinking Water & Sanitation Chaudhary Birender SINGH Min. of Earth Sciences Harsh VARDHAN Min. of External Affairs Sushma SWARAJ Min. of Finance Arun JAITLEY

India Review 2016 Page 133 of 408 pages India

Min. of Food Processing Industries Harsimrat Kaur BEDAL Min. of Health & Family Welfare Jagat Prakash NADDA Min. of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises Anant GEETE Min. of Home Affairs Rajnath SINGH Min. of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation M. Venkaiah NAIDU Min. of Human Resource Development Smriti Zubin IRANI Min. of Information & Broadcasting Arun JAITLEY Min. of Labor & Employment Narendra Singh TOMAR Min. of Law & Justice Sadananda GOWDA Min. of Micro-, Small, & Medium Enterprises Kalraj MISHRA Min. of Mines Narendra Singh TOMAR Min. of Minority Affairs Najma HEPTULLA Min. of Overseas Indian Affairs Sushma SWARAJ Min. of Panchayati Raj Chaudhary Birender SINGH Min. of Parliamentary Affairs M. Venkaiah NAIDU Min. of Personnel, Public Grievances, & Pensions Narendra MODI Min. of Railways Suresh Prabhkar PRABHU Min. of Road Transport & Highways Nitin GADKARI Min. of Rural Development Chaudhary Birender SINGH Min. of Science & Technology Harsh VARDHAN Min. of Shipping

India Review 2016 Page 134 of 408 pages India

Nitin GADKARI Min. of Social Justice & Empowerment Thaawar Chand GEHLOT Min. of Steel Narendra Singh TOMAR Min. of Tribal Affairs Jual ORAM Min. of Urban Development M. Venkaiah NAIDU Min. of Water Resources, River Development, & Ganga Rejuvenation Uma BHARATI Min. of Women & Child Development Maneka GANDHI Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Aryuveda, Siddha, Unan, & Homeopathy Shripad Yesso NAIK Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Coal Piyush GOYAL Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Commerce & Industry Nirmala SITHARAMAN Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Culture Mahesh SHARMA Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Development of North-Eastern Region Jitendra SINGH Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Environment, Forest, & Climate Change Prakash JAVADEKAR Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Labor & Employment Bandaru DATTATREYA Min. of State (Independent Charge) for New & Renewable Energy Piyush GOYAL Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Petroleum & Natural Gas Dharmendra PRADHAN Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Planning Inderjit Singh RAO Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Power Piyush GOYAL Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Science & Technology Jitendra SINGH Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Skill Development & Entrepreneurship Rajiv Pratap RUDY Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Statistics & Program Implementation V. K. SINGH

India Review 2016 Page 135 of 408 pages India

Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Textiles Santosh Kumar GANGWAR Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Tourism Mahesh SHARMA Min. of State (Independent Charge) for Youth Affairs & Sports Sarbananda SONOWAL Head, Dept. of Atomic Energy Narendra MODI Head, Dept. of Space Narendra MODI Governor, Reserve Bank of India Raghuram RAJAN Ambassador to the US Arun Kumar SINGH Permanent Representative to the UN, New York Syed AKBARUDDIN

-- as of 2016

Leader Biography

Leader Biography

Note on Presidency: Pranab Mukherjee

An (indirect) presidential election was scheduled to be held in India on July 19, 2012. In India, the president is the titular head of state (distinct from the prime minister who is the head of government), and is elected for a five-year term by an electoral college consisting of elected members from both houses of the "Sansad" (Parliament) and the legislatures of the states.

In 2012, the major contenders for the presidency were Pranab Mukherjee, of the ruling United

India Review 2016 Page 136 of 408 pages India

Progressive Alliance party, and P.A. Sangma, a former speaker of the Indian parliament and the candidate of the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance.

All expectations were that Mukherjee would secure the presidency, given the ruling party's dominance in parliament, whose votes are crucial to the outcome of the election. Indeed, with the votes counted it was Mukherjee who emerged victorious. According to the independent Election Commission Mukherjee secured an overwhelming victory having won more than 558,000 votes against 240,000 votes by Sangma. Accordingly, Mukherjee was set to be sworn into office as India's new president on July 25, 2012.

Note: Pranab Mukherjee, of the ruling United Progressive Alliance party, holds two master's degrees as well as a law degree. A native of the eastern state of West Bengal, he has served in a number of capacities in India's ruling Congress party and held a number of key ministerial portfolios, including defense and foreign affairs.

Foreign Relations

General Relations

India's size, population and strategic location give it a prominent voice in international affairs, and its growing industrial base, military strength, and scientific and technical capacity give it added weight. It collaborates closely with other developing countries on issues from trade to environmental protection.

India has always been an active member of the United Nations (U.N.) and has been seeking a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council in addition to other U.N. reforms. India has a long tradition of participating in U.N. peacekeeping operations and most recently contributed personnel to U.N. operations in Sierra Leone, Somalia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Kuwait, Bosnia, Angola and El Salvador.

The end of the Cold War dramatically affected Indian foreign policy. India remains a leader of the developing world and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), and hosted the NAM Heads of State

India Review 2016 Page 137 of 408 pages India

Summit in 1997. India has also been seeking to strengthen its political and commercial ties with the United States, Japan, the European Union, Iran, China, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Regional Relations

India is an active member of the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IORARC).

Relations with SAARC

Certain aspects of India's relations within the subcontinent are conducted through the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Its members are Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Established in 1985, SAARC encourages cooperation in agriculture, rural development, science and technology, culture, health, population control, counter- narcotics and counter-terrorism.

SAARC has intentionally stressed these "core issues" and has not served as a forum for more divisive political issues, although political dialogue is often conducted at the margins of SAARC meetings. In 1993, India and its SAARC partners signed an agreement to lower tariffs within the region over time. With the implementation of the South Asian Preferential Trade Agreement (SAPTA), SAARC now hopes to finalize the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) by 2005.

Border Relations

In order to deal with dissident and separatists from Assam, India has worked with Burmese and Bhutanese forces to secure this area. Efforts toward this end were ongoing as of 2005.

Relations with Pakistan

The violence that accompanied the partition of India at the time of independence in 1947 continues to govern the bilateral relations between the two neighbors. Ever since the partition, India and Pakistan have had testy relations and the two countries have fought several wars in the last five decades.Indeed, many of the issues dividing the two nations are the legacy of the British colonial rule and the hasty partition.

One of these issues is the dispute over the status of Jammu and Kashmir. During the negotiations on partition of a united India into two nations conducted in early 1947, Pakistani leadership had sought a far larger territory than it actually ended up with. It had set its sights on all Muslim

India Review 2016 Page 138 of 408 pages India majority areas of India, including the large chunk in the east and a sizeable part of the state of Hyderabad in southern India. Claims had also been mounted for smaller princely states that either had a Muslim ruler or a sizeable Muslim population like Junagarh in Gujarat in western India.

The Indian leadership, of course, opposed such a partition and agreed to yield the territory in the east. Hence when Pakistan was born on the midnight of Aug. 14-15, 1947, it had two principal parts. The one in the west composed of the present day Pakistan, minus the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The other part in the east is today's Bangladesh.

The status of Jammu and Kashmir was left undecided during these negotiations, with both parties agreeing to let the decision be taken by the ruler of the state. Pakistani leadership was, of course, certain that the ruler, though a Hindu, would seek to merge his territory with Pakistan. However, by October 1947 -- over three months after the independence -- Pakistan lost patience and launched an undeclared invasion of the state. First, several thousand armed tribesmen hailing from Waziri and Mansud tribes from the adjoining North Western Frontier Province of Pakistan intruded into Jammu and Kashmir, declared an armed revolt against the Maharaja and demanded that the state join Pakistan.

Soon, the Pakistani army, too, entered Jammu and Kashmir. Within a matter of days, Pakistani forces, both official and unofficial, had taken control of nearly a third of the territory of the state and were barely a few kilometers from Srinagar, the capital of the state. Alarmed, the king turned to India to seek assistance against the invasion and agreed to sign the accession treaty with India, which further infuriated Pakistani leadership, which, refused to accept the accession, and said it was against the will of the people of the state. However, soon after the accession, the Indian army was dispatched rapidly into the state to counter the invasion. This was the first battle between the two newly independent countries. The Indian forces were able to drive back the Pakistani forces, before a cease-fire was declared, following resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and pressure by other members of the international community.

India also lodged a complaint with the United Nations Security Council on Dec. 30, 1947, against the Pakistani aggression and demanded a withdrawal of the invading forces and restoration of status quo ante in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan, too, lodged a counter complaint against the presence of Indian Army in the state and the accession, which, it said, did not represent the popular demand in Jammu and Kashmir. It demanded a plebiscite in the state to determine the will of the people. The Security Council passed two resolutions on the issue. Both the resolutions called upon Pakistan to withdraw its forces and also the armed insurgents from the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It also called upon the two sides to restore peace and order in the state. Once these two conditions had been met, India was to, in consultation and coordination with the United Nations, hold a plebiscite in the state.

Despite repeated requests from the United Nations and India, Pakistan refused to withdraw its

India Review 2016 Page 139 of 408 pages India forces and kept on demanding that India hold a plebiscite. Thus began the dispute that has continued to cloud Pakistan's relationship with India for the last 53 years. The dispute has already seen several wars between the two countries, including the war of 1947-48.

In the 1949 cease-fire agreement signed in Karachi, the two sides agreed to hold their positions. This led to a partition of the state with Pakistan retaining the one-third northwestern part of the state it had managed to capture before India entered the scene. India had to rest content with the two-thirds southern and eastern part of the state. The two sides also agreed to a Line of Control, which served as the de facto international border between Pakistan and India. Pakistan then very arbitrarily divided the part of Kashmir under its control in two unequal parts. In December 1947, of the roughly 84,000 sq km under Pakistani control, more than 67,000 sq km was separated from Kashmir and constituted into Northern Territories, to be directly administered from Islamabad, and annexed into Pakistan. The remaining 11,000 sq km was symbolically called Azad Kashmir (Free Kashmir). Both the territories are controlled directly by Islamabad. Though Azad Kashmir has its own President and a government and judiciary, all the power has been concentrated in its own hands by the central government. All the responsible positions, too, have been allocated to non- Kashmiris, mostly the powerful Punjabi community that dominates both the central government and the armed forces of the country.

Pakistan's foreign policy on Kashmir remained driven by the desire to take over the remaining portion of Kashmir, administered by India. Meanwhile, India was determined to keep the portion that remained with it. Realizing that it could not match Indian military might on its own, Pakistan developed a two-pronged strategy to counter India. It developed close relations with the United States (U.S.) and China. In 1954, it joined two military alliances-the South East Asian treaty Organization and the Central Treaty Organization-both led by the United States and aimed at countering the Soviet influence in Asia. Joining these groupings enabled Pakistan to establish a strong strategic relationship with the U.S., which also emerged as the biggest arms supplier to Pakistan. For the U.S., Pakistan was slowly to emerge as the strongest ally in its rivalry with the Soviet Union. Simultaneously, Pakistan also developed ties with China. In 1957, in an attempt to appease the Chinese, Pakistan ceded over 5,000 sq km from its part of occupied Kashmir to the Chinese. Soon after the Indo-Chinese war of 1962, Pakistan became aware of the Sino-Indian rivalry for domination of the South Asian region and deftly played the Chinese card against India.

Armed by its two powerful allies and relying upon their support, Pakistan grew increasingly aggressive in its dealings with India. Heightened tensions led to another war over Kashmir between the two nations. Full-scale hostilities erupted in August 1965, when India alleged that insurgents trained and supplied by Pakistan had entered in a large number inside Indian territory with an aim to repeat the incidents of 1947-48. Pakistan had planned a "Kashmir Revolt Day" for Aug. 9, 1965, by organizing civil protests in the Indian part of Kashmir. It was also alleged to be sending heavily armed troops into the state, using the civil unrest as an excuse. Though Pakistan denied the accusations, the two countries embarked on a war that continued until Sept. 23, 1965.

India Review 2016 Page 140 of 408 pages India

The Indian authorities complained to the U.S. about the use of American weapons by the Pakistani forces. Pakistan was under an obligation under the Mutual Security Act with the U.S., not to use American weapons in aggression against any other country. This led the U.S. government to impose an arms embargo on both the sides and the State Department declared American neutrality in the Indo-Pak conflict. The arms embargo seriously affected Pakistan, as it was highly dependent on American supplies. Pakistan believed the U.S. should have extended help to them as per the assurances given to them when Pakistan joined the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and Central Treaty Organization (CENTO). The neutral stand taken by the U.S. also infuriated Pakistan as it had expected the U.S. to use its influence to stop the Indian army's advance across the international line into Pakistan and thus threatening Pakistan's independence. Once again, Pakistan looked to China for help. In March 1965, Pakistan President Ayub Khan had visited China and secured not only assurances of support to Pakistan in the event of a war with India, but also substantial military supplies.

The interest shown by China in the subcontinent became a matter of concern to the American policy makers. Therefore, the US lifted the arms embargo partially in 1967 and agreed to sell non- lethal weapons to both India and Pakistan. During the 1965 war, the Soviet Union adopted a neutral stand and offered its good offices for a peaceful settlement between the two warring states. The prime ministers of India and Pakistan met at Tashkent on Jan. 3, 1966. The conference lasted from Jan. 4-10, 1966, during which time the prime ministers agreed to create good relations in accordance with the U.N. Charter, to promote understanding and friendly relations and a pullout of troops to their pre-war positions. Thus, India returned a lot of territory that its army had seized during the war.

Then, as Pakistan suffered its own internal war between east and west, the flow of refugees into India increased as Pakistan tightened its grip on East Pakistan. This led to mounting tensions between India and Pakistan and the third Indo-Pakistan War began on December 3. This war was very different from the previous two fought in 1947-48 and 1965. For the first time, Kashmir was not the issue and the two superpowers -- the United States and the Soviet Union -- played an active role in an Indo-Pak conflict.

In order to put pressure on India, the U.S. dispatched part of its seventh fleet, code-named "Task Force 74" led by aircraft carrier Enterprise and half a dozen other ships into the Bay of Bengal through the Straits of Malacca. An amphibious assault ship, Tripoli, with a battalion of 800 Marines, three guided missile escorts, four destroyers, a nuclear attack submarine, and an oil tanker were sent to lend support to Pakistan. The Soviets, who had so far maintained neutrality in Indo-Pak affairs, came out openly in support of India, partially due to the Indo-Soviet Peace and Friendship Treaty signed in August 1971 and partially to counter the U.S. The Soviets, too, dispatched a force of six vessels to the vicinity of the war zone. However, the two powers did not directly use the forces in the conflict, which on the ground had been turning into a rout for

India Review 2016 Page 141 of 408 pages India

Pakistan, at least in the East. On December 16, barely 13 days after the battle began, the Pakistani forces in Dhaka surrendered unconditionally to the Indian forces. However, the situation was not as dramatic on the western front, where India had made some gains, especially in Punjab and Sindh provinces of Pakistan.

In March 1972, India sent a formal note to Pakistan desiring a summit between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Five-day Indo-Pak Summit talks began on June 28, 1972, at Simla in Himachal Pradesh. Both sides presented different priorities of items on the agenda but later they agreed to a mutually acceptable draft for the agenda. Agreement was reached on the recognition of the actual line of control of 1971 - where the forces were on the day of the cease-fire-as the new international boundary between India and Pakistan.

The two countries again endorsed the principle of the settlement of bilateral disputes through peaceful means. In 1974, Pakistan and India agreed to resume postal and telecommunications links, and to enact measures to facilitate travel. Trade and diplomatic relations were restored in 1976, after a hiatus of five years.

The tensions in bilateral relations continued to spring up from time to time. In May 1974, India conducted an underground nuclear test-in response to the strides made by the Chinese in deploying nuclear arsenal in Tibet. However, the test was seen as a direct threat by Pakistan, which accelerated its own secret nuclear program-being carried out with assistance from the Chinese.

In the 1980s, India repeatedly accused Pakistan of fomenting terrorism in its Punjab state, by aiding the separatist movement in the state. India said Pakistan was trying to avenge its 1971 partition by trying to divide India by aiding the terrorists. Tensions mounted further in April 1984 after troops were deployed to the Siachen Glacier, a high-altitude desolate area close to the China border left un-demarcated by the cease-fire agreement (Karachi Agreement) signed by Pakistan and India in 1949.

The bilateral relations between India and Pakistan remained tense until mid 1980s. In 1986, things began to improve, with a change of government in both the countries. In India, Rajiv Gandhi, the youngest ever prime minister had taken over in late 1984, while across the border in Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto won the elections that were held after the death of military dictator General Zia ul Haq and the return of democracy after almost a decade of military rule.

In early 1986, the Indian and Pakistani governments began high-level talks to resolve the Siachen Glacier border dispute and to improve trade. In an effort to curtail tensions, the two countries formed a joint commission. In December 1988, Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi concluded a pact not to attack each other's nuclear facilities. Agreements on cultural exchanges and civil aviation also were initiated.

India Review 2016 Page 142 of 408 pages India

Peace did not last for long. By early 1990, armed militants began a campaign of terror in Jammu and Kashmir, attacking civil and especially Hindu targets throughout the state. India blamed the militancy on active support and training provided by Pakistan, while Pakistan denied any involvement, saying it was only providing moral support to the "freedom fighters."

Over the last decade Pakistani support to Kashmiri militants became the main issue between the two sides. India said that there were 110 training camps for the Kashmiri terrorists being run by the Pakistani Army and the intelligence agency, the ISI, in the part of Kashmir that is under Pakistani occupation, while another dozen such camps are located near the Pak-Afghan border. Many of the militants have been armed with the weapons that were initially supplied by the U.S. for the Afghan mujahidin. In fact, over the years, the composition of the militant groups, too, has changed dramatically. In recent years, a large majority of militants killed or arrested by Indian security forces in Kashmir are of non-Kashmiri origin, with mercenaries and Islamic fundamentalists from as diverse a mix as Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, Central Asian countries and of course Pakistan. Intelligence reports also point at the growing use of drug money by the ISI to fund the militants.

In 1997, high-level Indo-Pakistani talks resumed after a three-year pause. The prime ministers of India and Pakistan met twice and the foreign secretaries conducted three rounds of talks. In June 1997, the foreign secretaries identified eight "outstanding issues" around which continuing talks would be focused. In September 1997, the talks broke down over the issues of Kashmir and peace and security. Pakistan advocated that separate working groups examine the issues. India responded that the two issues should be taken up along with six others on a simultaneous basis.

Tensions escalated dramatically following Pakistan's test of its Ghauri intermediate-range missile in April 1998 and nuclear tests in both India and Pakistan in May 1998. All of Pakistan and India's neighbors as well as the United States condemned these actions. Attempts were made to restart the talks. India and Pakistan resumed their dialogue concerning Kashmir in mid-October 1998; however, no progress toward a resolution of the conflict was made. Additional talks began in February 1999 in Lahore.

Prior to the events of mid-1999 (described below), approximately 80,000 Indian and Pakistani troops were deployed along the 700 kilometer (1,120 mile) Line of Control (LOC). Since the LOC was established, the two states' troops have continued to exchange artillery fire across the line.

The conflict heated up in May 1999 when India again accused Pakistan of supporting an insurgency in Indian-controlled Kashmir, just over the Line of Control in the area of Kargil. India also alleged that Pakistani regular armed forces had joined the insurgents and captured key peaks in the region that would control the access to a strategic highway linking Jammu and Kashmir capital, Srinagar, to the eastern city of Leh. By capturing the peaks, the Pakistani troops could easily prevent the use of the highway, which is of critical importance to the Indian troops as well as

India Review 2016 Page 143 of 408 pages India civilian administration. Pakistan initially denied these accusations. India heavily reinforced its troops in the area, and began pushing back the infiltrators, with the use of its air force as well.

Intense fighting continued until July 1999. Given both Pakistan and India's demonstrated nuclear capacity, major and minor powers alike were gravely concerned. Ongoing diplomatic efforts, including calls from the United States and the People's Republic of China for a dialogue between India and Pakistan, initially proved unsuccessful. Following a July 4 meeting, however, U.S. President Clinton and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif issued a joint statement calling for the restoration of the Line of Control as delineated in the 1972 Simla Agreement and pledging to take "concrete steps" to accomplish this goal. In particular, Prime Minister Sharif promised to try to convince the Kashmiri militants to pull back from Indian-administered territory, effectively admitting that at least some of the militants were receiving Pakistani support. By July 11, Pakistan claimed that Kashmiri militant groups had responded favorably to the government and military's requests to de-escalate. By that time, Indian and Pakistani military leaders had also agreed on a disengagement plan.

Although some militants began pulling out shortly thereafter, India refused to call the agreement a cease-fire, promising to keep up its efforts to oust the insurgents until all had been removed. To complicate matters further, while some militant groups were receptive to Pakistan's requests for a withdrawal, the United Jihad Council, the umbrella organization representing some 15 Kashmiri militant groups, refused to pull out of Indian-administered territory. Thus, pockets of militants remained behind, engaging the Indian troops. By July 26, however, India had ousted the last remaining insurgents from its territory.

In mid-July, Pakistan finally admitted that some of its regular troops had, indeed, crossed the Line of Control (LOC). While not acknowledging engagement with Indian troops on India's side of the LOC, Pakistani military leaders stated that they had sent patrols across the line in an attempt to preempt Indian attacks. These admissions were prompted by the fact that India had in its possession dozens of bodies of Pakistani soldiers who had been killed in fighting on the Indian side.

Over the latter part of 2001, more details of the Kargil operation were exposed. It is now almost certain that the entire operation had been planned and conducted by the Pakistani Army, with General Pervez Musharraf (later, he would become Pakistan's leader) at the helm. The operation had been planned last winter at the highest levels, though Prime Minister Sharif denied that he had been consulted at all by the Army. The 10-week long conflict resulted in over 1,000 casualties. India claimed total victory in the operation since it had attained its stated objective of reclaiming the territory occupied by the Pakistani forces and the militants. India also won international praise for the restraint it had exercised by limiting the fighting to the Kargil sector, instead of opening other battlefronts against Pakistan.

India Review 2016 Page 144 of 408 pages India

Tensions were high, even at the end of the fighting. In the second week of August a plane carrying 16 people was shot down by India in the western state of Gujarat. India claimed the aircraft was an espionage aircraft and clearly flying in its airspace without responding to the numerous messages from the Indian air traffic controllers. However, Pakistan maintained the plane was on a training flight and was within its airspace. Pakistan's threats of retaliation raised India's defenses to high alert. Pakistan later filed a claim with the International Court of Justice seeking compensation for the destruction of the aircraft and the loss of life, which India rejected. In June 2000, the Court upheld the Indian position that the issue was beyond its purview.

The October military coup d'etat in Pakistan brought mixed reactions from India. Many were afraid of an escalated conflict. It was widely believed that the military had taken over as a result of the Pakistani government's concessions to India. The Indian government said that regardless of the nature of the government, efforts to settle the conflict would continue. The new military government of Pakistan expressed its willingness to work towards peace by withdrawing its troops from the Indian border, however, these gestures were weakened in early November when fighting resumed. Cross-border firing was halted in late November after an agreement between Pakistani and Indian commanders.

The revelation of India's nuclear arms doctrine in August brought pleas from Pakistan for international intervention. India said that it would use its nuclear weapons only in response to a nuclear attack and that its development of nuclear weapons would continue until it reaches a level of minimum deterrence. India also clearly explained that its nuclear program was not aimed at or driven by Pakistan, but instead by the entire strategic perceptions, thus clearly bringing the Chinese missile arsenal into play. India has maintained that its major strategic threat came from its neighbor, China and not Pakistan.

At the end of 1999, yet another terrorist act, pointed to the involvement of Pakistan or Pakistan- based elements in fomenting terrorism in India. An Indian Airlines aircraft IC814, carrying over 120 passengers and crew and flying from Nepalese capital Kathmandu to New Delhi, was hijacked. After several attempted landings at various airports in the region, the aircraft finally touched ground at Kandahar airport in southern Afghanistan - which is also incidentally the base of Taliban regime. The hijackers, who were later identified by the Indian authorities as being nationals of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, demanded the release of over 40 prominent Kashmiri militants, besides a ransom of over $25 million. After three weeks of negotiations, the Indian government agreed to release three militants, including the chief of a Pakistan-based militant organization.

Within a week of his release, the three militants were roaming around major Pakistani cities openly, surrounded by their armed supporters. They declared their intention to take their battle against India to new heights. India again alleged Pakistani was involved in the hijack and said that the entire operation had been masterminded by the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI. India said the Pakistani embassy in Nepal had collaborated with the hijackers by providing them with false

India Review 2016 Page 145 of 408 pages India identity papers and travel documents necessary to board the aircraft. Pakistan denied all the charges and said it had nothing to do with the hijackers or the released militants, repeating its claim that it provides only moral support to the Kashmiri militants.

Tensions remained high between the two countries throughout most of the year 2000. India refused to hold talks with Pakistan as long as that country's support for terrorism in Kashmir continued. In the year 2000, most countries and international groups including the U.S., the European Union and G-8 supported India's point of view on kashmir, rejecting Pakistan's contention of international mediation in resolving the Kashmir dispute.

The situation took a slight turn for the better in November 2000, when India announced a unilateral cease-fire in its operations against the insurgents in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan reacted by announcing it would pull back its troops from the frontier in order to further ease tensions in the area. Musharraf also announced he was willing to meet Indian leaders 'anywhere and at any time' to discuss the outstanding bilateral issues in order to improve relations. India, on the other hand, maintained that it could not 'legitimize' the military government by holding discussions with Musharraf and slso rejected all talks until Pakistan stopped aiding and abetting the militias in Jammu and Kashmir. However, expectations that the initiatives taken by the two countries would lead to the resumption of a dialogue remained unfulfilled. Both countries waited for the other to make the first move. In May 2001, India initiated action when it suddenly announced an end to the unilateral cease-fire and simultaneously invited Musharraf to visit New Delhi for discussions with Prime Minister Vajpayee. The decision to hold the summit meeting was welcomed by all. The international community was watching with great interest the developments leading up to thee summit and the outcome itself.

The main source of contention between India and Pakistan during the summit focused on the contentious problem of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan said that unless the two sides found a solution to Jammu and Kashmir, the relations between them could not improve. India, on the other hand, maintained that Jammu and Kashmir was a very difficult issue and that as no quick resolution was in sight, the two countries should address other issues and work to improve bilateral relations in the fields of trade, facilitating movement of people between the two countries and to reduce tension on the border. India said that these improvements would go a long way in removing tension between the two countries and lead to the building of confidence between them. Ultimately, the two positions were far too divergent for the Agra summit to yield any significant results. The two sides were also unable to agree on a joint declaration.

Though the situation continued as a stalemate between the two neighbors, relations took a plunge in December when a group of terrorists launched a failed attack on the Indian Parliament in New Delhi. On Dec. 13, 2001, a group of terrorists launched an attack on the Indian Parliament House in New Delhi. In the ensuing gun-battle, 14 persons including all the terrorists were killed.

India Review 2016 Page 146 of 408 pages India

The Indian government accused two Pakistan-based terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Tayiba and Jaish-e- Mohammad for the attack. In a sharp speech soon after the attack, India's Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee accused Pakistan for giving refuge to the two groups and threatened a strong response if Pakistan did not cooperate by shutting down all terrorist bases on its soil. The speech led to heightened tensions between the two countries and a threat of war once again loomed large over the highly unstable Indo-Pak border. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf responded by saying that there was no evidence the two groups had been involved in the attack and that Pakistan would actively protect itself in case of any precipitate action by India.

Despite appeals of calm and restraint by all the major world powers, including the United States, tension continued to mount between the two neighbors. Pakistan refused to accept Indian claims that the two organizations had been involved in the attack on the Parliament. India's position has been somewhat vindicated since the U.S. put the two organizations on its list of terrorist organizations and urged all the countries to freeze their assets and clamp down on their activities. Though Pakistan said it would act against the two organizations, India remains skeptical and tensions continue to mount. Pakistan cancelled leave for troops and recalled all its military personnel on leave as part of a state of high alert that was declared soon after the attack on Indian Parliament. Pakistan also re-deployed its troops on the Line-of-Control in Jammu and Kashmir. These troops had been unilaterally withdrawn in 2000 as a gesture aimed at normalization of relations with India. The situation was aggravated as both the countries began massing their troops along the international border in a show of strength. The cross border firing, which is normally restricted to the most contentious parts of the disputed Jammu and Kashmir state, soon spread and intensified, leading to dozens of deaths on both sides. Meanwhile, hundreds of civilians living along the border began to flee the area, partly due to the intense shelling of the border areas by the artillery on both sides of the border.

As the impasse on the political front continued, India decided to recall its high commissioner (ambassador) in Islamabad, saying that the bilateral relations had reached an all-time low following Islamabad's refusal to initiate action against the terrorist groups. In another significant scaling down of bilateral relations, India also decided to shut down train and bus services between the two countries. The services had been initiated in 1999 following the visit of Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to Pakistan. India also called off the proposed meeting between Musharraf and Vajpayee in January 2002, which was to be held in Nepalese capital of Kathmandu on the sidelines of the summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation or SAARC, a body that brings together the six South Asian nations. The Pakistan government criticized the Indian decision to recall the high commissioner saying that diplomatic channels needed to be kept open especially during times of crises. It said it would not take any retaliatory measure and keep its mission in New Delhi at full level.

Tensions continued to escalate, though chances of an outright war between the two countries

India Review 2016 Page 147 of 408 pages India seemed to be receding, especially due to the pressure being mounted by the U.S. and other global powers on both India and Pakistan to handle the situation with care and resolve the differences peacefully.

The year 2001 also saw a new element enter the Indo-Pakistani relationship - the Afghan situation. Although New Delhi had a very close relationship with successive governments in Kabul, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the muted Indian reaction to the invasion distanced India from the Afghan resistance. Thus when the Soviet Army pulled out in 1989, India was nearly totally out of the picture. The situation turned even worse when the Pakistan-sponsored Taliban won the battle for Kabul and captured almost all of Afghanistan in 1996. In the early 1990s, India did try to repair its mistakes of the past and began building a relationship with Ahmad Shah Masood, the military commander of the Northern Alliance. Since then, India has been developing a close relationship with the parties opposed to the Taliban, but as the Taliban held the sway almost throughout the country, Indian influence was limited. Pakistan, on the other hand, held a very special position in Afghanistan. Due to its close ties with the Taliban, whose forces were trained and armed by Pakistan and whose army and secret services, the ISI, continued to assist the Taliban in their battles against the Northern Alliance, Pakistan treated Afghanistan almost as a satellite state, much in the way that the Soviet Union treated countries of East Europe. In fact, the Afghan policy of Pakistan was even officially aimed at 'adding strategic depth' to Pakistan.

The Pakistani support for the Taliban, both overt and covert continued until almost the very end. As one Taliban stronghold after another continued to fall to the Northern Alliance army, Pakistani Air Force carried out several emergency sorties, extricating Pakistani army officials from various tight corners.

Thus it was hardly surprising that Pakistan and the Northern Alliance treated each other with open contempt and outright hostility. The turn of events was, however, advantageous for India as several leaders of the Northern Alliance acknowledged India's support in the past and asked New Delhi to step up its role in the international efforts aimed at finding a long-term solution to the Afghan problem. New Delhi also attracted a string of visits by senior officials of the Northern Alliance and ministers in the interim administration.

For India, the developments were welcome as India has stated on numerous occasions that the terror activities in Jammu and Kashmir were often carried out by terrorists either based or trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hence, Indian officials hope, a friendly government in power at Kabul will definitely clamp down on the terrorists' hideouts and training camps on the Afghan territory.

Tensions between India and Pakistan increased again in the last week of February 2002, as Pakistani ground troops almost shot down an air force AN-32 transport aircraft carrying Air Marshal V K Bhatia, commander-in-chief of the Western Air Command, as he was inspecting the Indian troops near Kargil in Kashmir. Then, in early May 2002, an attack on an army camp in

India Review 2016 Page 148 of 408 pages India

Indian-administered Kashmir left 30 people dead and a further, marked increase in tension between India and Pakistan. By May 2002, both sides exchanged heavy artillery, shelling, and machine-gun fire across the Line of Control.

There were increased fears that a small spark could cause a major conflict to erupt. Indeed, Pakistan also launched three short-range nuclear ballistic missile tests. Pakistan's President Musharraf offered a speech, in conjunction with the missile tests. In response, India's officials accused Pakistan of political posturing and military brinkmanship, however, they insisted that India would not initiate a nuclear war. Indian officials have stated that India is committed to its policy of no "first use" of nuclear weapons. For its part, India described Pakistan as the "epicenter of international terrorism." In this regard, India again charged that Pakistan provides state support for the training of Islamic militant groups (including support for terrorist training camps), which they believe are responsible for a series of recent attacks on Indian targets. Pakistan denied these charges, stating that it simply provides "moral support" to various groups seeking self-determination for the people of the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir.

In early June 2002, as the situation between the two nuclear powers -- India and Pakistan -- heated up, international efforts to quell the tension were concentrated on the regional security summit in Kazakhstan. With Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee both attending the same conference, it was hoped that possible face-to-face talks would facilitate a breakthrough between the two countries. Russian authorities played a key role in trying to achieve this end. Although no breakthrough was initiated, and India remained skeptical about any resolution until cross-border terrorism is halted, India reportedly intercepted some communication from militant Islamic groups suggesting that Pakistan had, indeed, ordered a halt in infiltration at the Line of Control. This admission from India was regarded as a hopeful step in the direction of rapprochement.

On June 10, 2002, India reiterated a previously-stated view that there was a quantifiable reduction in levels of infiltration of Pakistani militants across the Line of Control into Kashmir. The acknowledgement occurred almost simultaneously with reductions of the levels of cross-border shelling and violence. In another measure toward de-escalation, India also announced that it was lifting a flight ban on commercial Pakistani aircraft, which had been in effect since the attacks on the Indian parliament six months before.

In early 2003, with an imbroglio brewing over the funding of Kashmiri separatist groups, senior diplomatic corps from both India and Pakistan returned to their respective countries. The contretemps occurred when the Indian police arrested two members of Hurriyat, a Kashmiri separatist group, for financing militant terrorists. The police asserted that the finances had been provided by the acting Pakistani High Commissioner, Jalil Abbas Jilani, and funneled from India's capital city of Delhi to separatists in Indian-administered Kashmir. The revelation resulted in Jilani's expulsion. For his part, Jilani claimed that the charges were simply measures aimed at intimidating

India Review 2016 Page 149 of 408 pages India

Pakistan's diplomatic corps in India.

Soon thereafter, India's acting High Commissioner, Sudhir Vyas, left the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, having been expelled for "actions unbecoming of their status." The phrase is diplomatic terminology for charges of spying. The details of the spying charges are yet unknown, however, most observers assume that the expulsions of Vyas, as well as four other Indian diplomats, were levied in response to the expulsion of Jilani from India.

Later, an accusation by India's Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee about Pakistani support for terrorism exacerbated deteriorating relations. Even though new diplomatic personnel for both countries were approved to replace the expelled diplomatic staffers, the ever-brewing fight over Kashmir raised the specter of nuclear conflict between these two nuclear neighbors on the Indian subcontinent.

Despite a spate of fresh violence in Indian-administered Kashmir by militant Islamists, as of the spring of 2003, there appeared to be a thawing of relations between India and Pakistan.

First, the hardliner Indian Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, addressed the public in Kashmir's summer capital of Srinagar and expressed the view that dialogue was necessary for building peace in Kashmir. Pakistan's government expressed gratitude for the gesture of openness but maintained the Pakistani position on Kashmir. Then, in a positive breakthrough, however, at the end of April 2003, Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee spoke with his Pakistani counterpart, Prime Minister Mir Zafarulla Khan Jamali about measures aimed at improving bilateral relations. Soon thereafter, India and Pakistan said that they would re-establish diplomatic relations.

Most recently, Pakistan shockingly stated that it would be prepared to denuclearise its arsenal if India would do likewise. Because India is believed to possess nuclear weapons not only because of on-going conflict with Pakistan but also as a deterrent against China, it is unlikely that mutual abandonment of nuclear arsenals will take place. Nevertheless, the suggestion was regarded as a diplomatic shift of sorts.

Also in 2003, United States Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, was due to visit Islamabad and Delhi; discussions with the United States envoy and the governments of both countries were to focus on possible bilateral dialogue and diffusing tensions. For its part, though, India's Prime Minister Vajpayee insisted that there would be no role for a third party in resolving the Kashmir dispute. Following on this theme, in June 2003, the Indian government rejected a call by the Pakistani leadership for a "roadmap for peace" reminiscent of the one advocated by the United States government in the Middle East. The Indian government in Delhi expressly said that it would never accept outside mediation and that there was no place for a third party at the negotiating table.

Since 2004, India and Pakistan have revisited the issue of composite dialogue and re-entered the

India Review 2016 Page 150 of 408 pages India path toward rapprochement. (See "Political Conditions" for details.)

In late 2005, Pakistan accused India of meddling in its affairs following commentary by India's Foreign Ministry about the rising violence in Pakistan's Balochistan state. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry said, "Our advice to the Indian officials would be to mind their own business." The level of anger by the Pakistani government was evidenced by the comments of its own Foreign Ministry spokesperson, who suggested that it was shocking that India might not comprehend the magnitude of its decision to issue a statement on a matter that involved Pakistan's internal interests. The incident provoked anxiety regarding relations between the two nuclear powers, which have gone to war with one another repeatedly and which remained at odds over the jurisdiction of Kashmir.

In April 2006, Pakistan announced that it had successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable missile with a range of 1,250 miles or 2,000 kilometers. In its announcement, the Pakistani military said that it was the second test-firing of the surface-to-surface Hatf VI missile, also known as the Shaheen II. It was first test-fired about a year earlier in March of 2005. The government of Pakistan said that it had informed other countries in the region of its plans in advance, and it noted that the missile test would not impair bilateral relations with its main adversary, India.

The close of April 2006 was also marked by terrorist attacks by militant Islamists that left at least 35 Hindus dead in Indian-controlled Kashmir. The Chief Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir, Vijay Bakaya, described the killings as a "massacre." No group immediately claimed responsibility for the attacks, which broke a period of relative quiet in Kashmir. The most well-known militant Islamic groups, operating in Kashmir from across the border in Pakistan, condemned these particular killings and said that they were not involved. One spokesman for the militant group, Hizbul Mujahideen, said that killing civilians would not further the "liberation movement." Instead, he placed the blame on Indian intelligence agents. For its part, India placed the blame on Pakistan. India's Foreign Minister Anand Sharma said, "It is cross border terrorism. It's not the first time we are saying it."

There were fears that the incident might impinge on Indo-Pak relations, which in recent times, has been on a more positive track due to bilateral overtures. Control of Kashmir, however, has always been the heart of the conflict between the two nuclear nations which has resulted at times in war, and which has left tens of thousands of people dead since 1989.

In July 2006, a massive terrorist attack in Mumbai, India evoked a quick condemnation from the government of Pakistan, which had been slowly crafting more positive relations with its nuclear neighbor. The attack came at the same time as an uptick in violence by militants in Kashmir.

In August 2006, Pakistan accused Deepak Kaul, an Indian official of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad, of handling sensitive documents. Pakistan said that Kaul had been caught "red- handed" and was detained by Pakistani agents and then ordered to leave the country. For his part,

India Review 2016 Page 151 of 408 pages India

Kaul denied any involvement in inappropriate activities. India also denied allegations of wrongdoing and responded by expelling a Pakistani diplomat, Sayed Mohammed Rafq Ahmed.

Two months later in October 2006, India detained a Pakistani driver, employed by the High Commission of Pakistan in Delhi, over the illegal transfer of classified documents. Indian security officials said that the Pakistani national, Mohammed Farooq, had been caught receiving the classified military documents. An Indian soldier was also arrested for passing the documents on to the Pakistani driver. Pakistan decried the India's handling of the situation, accusing its neighbor of violating international conventions. To this end, Pakistan released a statement that read as follows: "Pakistan has lodged a strong protest with the Indian government over the illegal detention and manhandling of Farooq, a driver of the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi by the Indian security personnel... The harassment of the Pakistani driver is a violation of international conventions as well as diplomatic norms."

The diplomatic imbroglio appeared to be a manifestation of rising tensions between the two nuclear powers in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks earlier in the summer of 2006. Moreover, these two incidences threatened to derail diplomatic progress between the two nuclear neighbors. With India and Pakistan set to resume peace talks in November 2006, it was unknown how these latest developments would affect the peace process.

Nevertheless, Indo-Pak relations remained on the agenda when Indian authorities said that they believed Pakistan's intelligence agency was responsible for the aforementioned July 2006 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The Indian authorities also said that the terror attacks had actually been carried out by the Pakistan-based Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba (mentioned above). To this end, Indian Police Commissioner A.N. Roy said that 11 Pakistanis were involved in carrying out the attacks, which involved the smuggling of explosives across the border. He also noted that operatives from the Students' Islamic Movement of India had been implicated in the attacks as well. Pakistan rejected the allegations, saying that India's claims were baseless and intended to malign Pakistan.

On November 16, 2006, Pakistan successfully test-fired its Hatf V (also known as Ghauri) missile, with a range of 1,300 kilometers. The Hatf V was said to be nuclear-capable. Pakistan said that the missile test was for the purpose of "checking technical parameters." Three days after Pakistan's missile test, India tested the medium-range Prithvi missile. The surface-to-surface Privthvi missile was said to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads, with a range of 250 kilometers, and could travel 150 kilometers in 300 seconds. The missile test was part of a air defense exercise and was to be followed by further tests. Ironically, the tests came only days after the two nuclear rivals met for peace talks in the Indian capital city of New Delhi.

On November 26, 2008, suspected Islamic militants from Pakistan waged a series of simultaneous

India Review 2016 Page 152 of 408 pages India terror attacks in the heart of India's commercial capital of Mumbai. At least 175 people died as a result and hundreds more were wounded in the attacks that lasted days. According to Indian authorities, at least ten terrorists -- all young men between the ages of 20 and 23 years -- took control of a fishing trawler in the Arabian Sea. Although the origin of the young men was unknown, Indian authorities surmised that they may have come from the Pakistani port of Karachi since the GPS tracker on the vessel showed a return mapping for that city.

The simultaneity of multi-sited attacks was a hallmark of a global jihadist operation, such as al- Qaida. Likewise, the reports that the terrorists were seeking Westerner victims pointed to the likes of al-Qaida or an al-Qaida inspired group with an international (vis a vis regional) agenda. As well, Ayman al-Zawari -- Osama Bin Laden's deputy leader -- had released a statement only weeks earlier. In the past, sudden media appearances by Bin Laden and/or those in his inner circle have sometimes functioned as ominous harbingers of subsequent attacks orchestrated by al-Qaida.

That said, there were other suggestions that the attacks could well have been launched by a Pakistani-based terror group, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the December 2001 storming of the Indian parliament. Another group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, was also mentioned due to its own history of militant Islamist attacks on India. Both militant Islamic groups have focused on the contested territory of Kashmir -- an ongoing source of conflict and even warfare between the two nuclear-capable countries of Pakistan and India over the years. Some regional analysts argued that recent conciliatory gestures by the Pakistani government toward the Congress Party's government in India may have served as motivation for such militant Islamic terrorists who favor a violent hard-line approach, rather than diplomacy, in securing jurisdiction over Kashmir. It should be noted that despite their regional agenda of Kashmir, both Lashkar-e-Taiba as well as Jaish-e-Mohammed have been increasingly regarded as aligned to some degree with al-Qaida, and thus may have adopted some of that group's grander global jihadist aspirations.

Amidst such speculation, investigators indicated that while the terrorists may have had local support, evidence indicated that they were not from India. The Indian government echoed this view, noting that those responsible for the terror attacks must have come from outside India's borders, but stopping short of a full-blown accusation of Pakistan’s complicity despite mounting evidence of a Pakistani connection of some kind or another. For its part, the Pakistani government condemned the attacks but also unequivocally denied any culpability in the attacks. The Pakistani government was also reticent about admitting that the terrorists may have been of Pakistani origins.

Nevertheless, Indian authorities moved one step closer to determining the actual identity of the perpetrators of this terrorist assault on Mumbai after questioning one of the surviving terrorists who had been captured by the police. Indian authorities said that 21-year old Mohammed Ajmal Mohammed Amir Kasar was from Pakistan's Punjab province. The authorities said that Kasar admitted that he belonged to the aforementioned Lashkar-e-Taiba and had been trained at one of

India Review 2016 Page 153 of 408 pages India that terrorist group's camps in Pakistan. According to Kasar, the objective of the terrorism plot was to "create an international incident." To this end, Kasar noted that "anything big in Mumbai would be noticed all over the world." Kasar also reportedly said that his co-conspirators intended to take hostages "for safe passage."

The revelation that the terrorists belonged to Lashkar-e-Taiba, as well as the contention by counter-terrorism experts that the group was actually an extension of the Pakistani intelligence service, were likely to collectively contribute to the ratcheting up of tensions on the Indian sub- continent.

As before, the Pakistani government was quick to distance itself from any evidence indicating Pakistani involvement. Farhatullah Babar, a spokesman for Pakistani President Asif Zardari, said: "We have demanded evidence of the complicity of any Pakistani group. No evidence has yet been provided."

Some time later, however, Pakistan acknowledged that the only gunman who was captured alive was, indeed, one of its citizens. Pakistan also admitted that the attackers arrived in India from Karachi in Pakistan, on a boat that was hired in the Balochistan province of Pakistan. In this way, Pakistan was finally acknowledging that some degree of conspiracy had originated in Pakistan. Accordingly, Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik promised that suspects from the Lashkar- e-Taiba militant group would face prosecution.

In late June 2009, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh demanded that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari deal with the Islamic extremist terrorists seeking to attack India. Prime Minister Singh said that peace talks were off the proverbial table unless President Zardari acted against Pakistan's largest terrorist organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the horrific Mumbai (Bombay) terror attacks in November 2008. Under pressure from the United States, Pakistan was already carrying out an offensive against al-Qaida and the Taliban. But despite the public attention on those two groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba was in fact the most significant and active extremist organization operating and orchestrating attacks from within Pakistani terrain.

India and Pakistan subsequently announced that they had agreed to meet for peace talks in Delhi on February 25, 2010. This plan would constitute the first negotiations since Indian suspended bilateral talks with Pakistan after the 2008 terror attacks, which were blamed on Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, as noted above.

On September 13, 2010, violence erupted in Indian-administered Kashmir. Protestors reportedly gathered to protest the desecration of the Koran in the United States in defiance of curfews. The demonstrations turned violent as a mob set government building and a Protestant school ablaze, and then attacked a police station, while chanting anti-Indian and anti-American slogans. Police opened fire on the protestors killing at least 18 civilians. As many as 100 others were wounded in

India Review 2016 Page 154 of 408 pages India the chaos. The eruption of violence was not sudden as protests have been ongoing for several months, originating in June 2010 when a 17-year-old student died after being hit by a tear gas shell during protests in Srinagar. This latest manifestation of violence in Muslim-dominated Kashmir appeared to have been sparked by the controversy in the United States about an American pastor's plans to burn the Koran on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in that country . As news filters through to Kashmiris that the American pastor did not actually go through with his plans to desecrate the Koran, it was possible that the rising tide of anti-American sentiment in Kashmir may subside. However, antipathy towards India, which has jurisdiction over Muslim-dominated Kashmir, was not likely to decrease in the near future. Instead, the fight to wrest control of Kashmir from India to Pakistan may well be revitalized among militants, effectively refocusing the main flashpoint on the Indian subcontinent between Indians and Pakistanis for more than five decades.

In October 2010, a report by The Guardian of the United Kingdom was published citing classified documents from the Indian government indicating the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence services in the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. Included in the report was information about the interrogation of David Headley, a Pakistani-American militant who was arrested and detained in the United States in 2009, in which he asserted that Pakistani intelligence services provided support for the deadly bombings. Headley detailed meetings between Pakistani intelligence services personnel and senior militants from Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) -- the terrorist group responsible for the Mumbai attacks. Headley also noted that at least two of his missions to carry out surveillance of the targets in Mumbai had been funded, at least in part, by Pakistani intelligence services.

Headley described the motivation behind Pakistani intelligence services' support for the attacks on India as being rooted in a desire to shore up militant groups with closer ties to the Pakistani state, who were being displaced by radical groups antagonistic to the state. In effect, while LeT may be regarded by the international community as a deadly and dangerous terrorist enclave, the Pakistani government finds LeT's regional interest in the control over Kashmir to be less of a threat to its own lock on power than the likes of the Taliban and other al-Qaida linked terror groups, which seek the overthrow of the Pakistani government. According to Headley, Pakistani intelligence hoped that a spectacular terror attack by LeT would mitigate the "integration" between Kashmir- focused terror groups and "Taliban-based outfits," viewed as a threat to the Pakistani state.

January 2013 saw clashes erupt close to Kashmir's "Line of Control." The clashes resulted in the deaths of two Indian soldiers as well as two Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan claimed that there had been "unprovoked" gunfire emanating from Indian troops ahead of the death of one of their soldiers. In response, the Indian army denied taking any provocative actions. India drew attention to the killing of two of their soldiers in a Pakistani border attack, as well as the "barbaric" mutilation of the bodies of the soldiers. For its part, Pakistan denied India's version of the events.

Although both countries initially appeared to be interested in de-escalating the tensions, on Jan. 12,

India Review 2016 Page 155 of 408 pages India

2013, the Indian military was hinting that it would entertain its options to counter Pakistan's violation of a prevailing ceasefire at the Line of Control. Indian Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne said in an interview with the media that although the two countries had mechanisms like the Line of Control and the 2003 ceasefire agreement in place, "violations with impunity" were "unacceptable." He continued, "We are watching the situation carefully, if the violations continue, perhaps we may have to think of some other options for compliance."

Taking an even stronger tone, the Indian army chief, General Bikram Singh, accused Pakistan of being involved in the planning of the attacks that left two Indian soldiers dead. He characterized the bloodshed was "pre-meditated, pre-planned activity" and called on Indian troops to be "aggressive and offensive in the face of provocation and fire" from Pakistan. Moreover, on Jan. 15, 2013, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed a warning to Pakistan on the matter of Kashmir, saying it "cannot be business as usual" with Pakistan after the deaths of two Indian soldiers. He made particular mention of the fact that one soldier was beheaded -- an apparent reference to the mutilation of the bodies of the soldiers noted above. In addition to the Indian army chief's warning that "aggressive" consequences would be in the offing, Indian authorities also halted a planned "visa on arrival" program for some Pakistani citizens.

In the second week of February 2013, violent protests broke out in the Indian-controlled Kashmir, with more than 35 people -- including 23 policemen -- injured as a result. The eruption of violence appeared to be in response to the execution of Mohammed Afzal Guru, who was convicted by Indian authorities for his involvement in the 201 terrorist attack on the Indian House of Parliament. That attack was linked to two Pakistan-based terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, with control over contested Kashmir at the center of their grievances. Guru was sentenced to death in 2004 by the Indian Supreme Court for his role in that attack that audacious attack on the Indian parliament. The death sentence was set to be carried out in 2006, however, it was delayed following a mercy petition by Guru's wife. Now, in 2013, the execution had taken place, evidently sparking the anger of some in the disputed territory of Kashmir.

At the start of May 2013, an Indian national who was convicted of spying by a court in Pakistan and subsequently jailed in that country as he awaited a death sentence, died at the hands of fellow inmates. At issue in that court case was Sarabjit Singh's role in a series of bomb attacks that left 14 people dead in Pakistan in 1990. Singh and his family have long insisted that he was innocent and accidentally strayed into Pakistani territory where he was arrested. However, those claims fell on deaf ears in Pakistan with mercy petition after mercy petition rejected by both the Pakistani court system and then-President Pervez Musharraf.

In 2013, Sarabjit Singh had been attacked by his fellow prisoners at the Kot Lakhpat jail in the Pakistani city of Lahore; he succumbed to a coma and was taken to the Jinnah hospital where he died.

Indians at home recoiled in horror at the news while the office Indian Prime Minister Manmohan

India Review 2016 Page 156 of 408 pages India

Singh demanded that the perpetrators be brought to justice for their "barbaric" attack. The Indian prime minister also addressed the issue personally, asserting via the social media venue Twitter, "Particularly regrettable that the Govt of Pakistan did not heed the pleas.... to take a humanitarian view of this case." The incident was not expected to help relations between the two nuclearized countries on the Indian subcontinent -- India and Pakistan -- who had already fought a few wars and remained at odds over Kashmir's jurisdiction.

It should be noted that on the day Singh was cremated, a Pakistani prisoner , Sanaullah Ranjay, was attacked by a fellow inmate at a maximum-security prison in Indian-administered Kashmir . He ultimately died of multi-organ failure at a hospital in India. Authorities in India said that ranjay's body would be returned to Pakistan, while Pakistani authorities demanded an investigation into the matter. Ranjay had been held in jail for close to two decades on chargest related to militant extremist activities.

In October 2014, intense fighting broke out between Pakistani and Indian forces in the Indian- controlled region of Kashmir in the Himalayas. The clashes began at the start of October 2014 and lasted more than a week, with nine Pakistani and eight Indian civilians being killed in the crossfire of violence between the two sides. At least 18,000 Indian nationals fled the area of Jammu to escape the violence, and claimed they were enduring harsh conditions at relief camps as they waited for the fighting to end.

While Kashmir is legally under Indian jurisdiction, it is home to a mostly Muslim population and claimed by Pakistan. For years, it has been the source of an intractable flashpoint between the two countries, even leading to war at times. Sporadic exchanges of gun fire and even clashes erupt despite a ceasefire that has remained mostly in tact since 2003; however, heavy fighting that leads to the deaths of civilians, of the type experienced in October 2014 can be regarded as a relative rarity.

India blamed Pakistan for the fighting in October 2014, saying that its own forces had retaliated to machine gun fire and mortar attacks on various positions along the border. Throughout, India has placed the responsibility for eruptions of fighting along the border on Pakistani troops, saying that they have offered cover to separatists, militants, and extremists as they violated the border and entered India's territory -- potentially with an eye on carrying out terrorist attacks in India. Indeed, there have been no shortage of terror attacks by Pakistani Islamic terrorists on India over the issue of Kashmir. One of the most significant was the storming of the Indian parliament in 2001 by Pakistani Islamic extremists from Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad -- both known Pakistani terrorist groups with aspirations in Kashmir. For its part, Pakistan typically downplays its role as a center and venue for Islamic terrorists (facts to the contrary notwithstanding) and normally accuses India of inflating its claims that Pakistanis are violating the border and plotting attacks on Indian territory.

India Review 2016 Page 157 of 408 pages India

Returning to the volatile conditions in October 2014 in Kashmir, Indian authorities expressed concern over the eruption of violence and urged a resolution. In an interview with the media, Arup Raha, the Air Chief Marshall of the Indian Air Force said: "We are all concerned and want an early solution to it [the clashes]." He continued, "We don't want to let the issue become serious."

In the background of these developments in Kashmir were the political dynamics in the respective capitals of New Delhi and Islamabad.

In the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was dealing with oppostion protests and an ineffective policy of dealing with Islamist terrorists, such as the Taliban. A weakened Sharif became dependent on the Pakistani military to hold onto power, and thus has had to concede his own predilections in favor of the military's stance towards India. That stance was not particularly hospitable to the notion of reconciliation with India.

Meanwhile, in the Indian capital of New Delhi, newly-elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose history of hardline positions against Muslims earned him both praise and condemnations, was riding high in a wave of popular support. As a known Hindu nationalist, he would likely be allowed a great deal of latitude in dealing with Pakistani aggression. Modi's tougher stances with Pakistan were illustrated by his decisions to cancel talks with Pakistan and not meet with Nawaz during meetings of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2014.

Editor's Note

Kashmir has been a flashpoint for several decades. A fiercely disputed territory, Kashmir is legally administered by India, but claimed by Pakistan. The dispute has resulted in conflicted conditions on the Indian sub-continent, which have frequently resulted in armed conflict. Although a final status agreement has yet to be reached, the "Line of Control" that separates Indian-controlled Kashmir from Pakistani territory serves as the de facto international border between the two countries. The geopolitical importance of the dispute has been confounded by both sides’ acquisition of nuclear weapons in 1998. In recent years, India has accused Pakistan of backing militants that have attacked civilian and military targets inside Indian-controlled Kashmir. Indeed, groups such as Lashkar e Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen have carried out terrorist attacks with an eye on ultimately taking control of Kashmir. The group has been said that its aspirations in Kashmir are linked with the broader jihadist efforts. Despite not being able to comprehensively resolve the conflict, India and Pakistan have made some progress in recent years in agreeing to establish transportation links such as a bus service across the "Line of Control," and more recently, the easing of visa restrictions. But the clashes in early 2013, particularly punctuated by the brutal killings of two Indian soldiers, resulted in India's decision to halt plans for a "visa on demand" program. The eruption of violence along the border in 2014 was not expected to improve the situation. Indeed, the political conditions in the respective capitals of New Delhi and Islamabad were not conducive to reconciliation. Instead, the leadership in India and Pakistan were more

India Review 2016 Page 158 of 408 pages India likely to stake out hard line -- and nationalistic -- positions, with neither side likely willing to cede ground.

Taliban suicide bomber carries out attack on Pakistani-Indian border

At the start of November 2014, a suicide bomber carried out attack on the Pakistani-Indian border, killing more than 45 people and injuring at least 70 more as a result. The Islamic terror group, the Taliban, claimed responsibility for the act of violence, saying it was revenge against the Pakistani army, which was carrying out an anti-Taliban offensive in the tribal areas on the Afghan-Pak border. This act of revenge, however, took place at a crossing at Lahore on the border with India, although no Indian troops were killed as a result. The Taliban attack on the border crossing at Lahore on Nov. 2, 2014 in reaction to the military's offensive operation only served to underline the reality that Islamic terror groups were, indeed, functioning in Pakistan. Indeed, they posed a threat to regional security.

Relations with the People's Republic of China (PROC)

Despite the historical suspicions that remain following the 1962 border war between India and China and the continuing territorial/boundary disputes, their relations have improved somewhat since 1988. Both countries have sought to reduce tensions along the frontier, expand trade and cultural ties, and normalize relations.

A series of high-level visits between the two nations has played a useful role in improving relations. In December 1996, Chinese President Jiang Zemin visited India on a tour of South Asia. While in New Delhi, he signed, with Indian Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda, a series of confidence- building measures along the disputed Sino-Indian border. These measures included troop reductions and weapons limitations along the border.

Sino-Indian relations suffered a setback in May 1998 when India blamed its nuclear tests on potential threats from China. These accusations followed the Indian Defense Minister's criticism of alleged Chinese "aggressive actions" in Pakistan and Myanmar. Since then, India has worked to improve relations with China and is currently soliciting China's support in the ongoing conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir. Thus far, China has remained neutral, and, as noted above, has called for a dialogue between the two sides. But in mid-1999 when Panchen Lama, the third highest leader of Tibetan Buddhists fled from his monastery in Lhasa to seek refuge in India, the old tensions come to the surface once again. Though India has not yet officially given asylum to the young lama, he is unlikely to be ever returned to China and hence the episode will continue to spring up in bilateral talks.

Indian President K R Narayanan visited China in 2000, setting off yet another thaw in the bilateral

India Review 2016 Page 159 of 408 pages India relations. The Indo-Chinese trade has also grown dramatically in the last two years, reaching a total of over $2 billion, a growth of over 100 percent since 1999. Though Indian industry feared that cheap Chinese imports would affect them severely, the trade boom is likely to continue for sometime. And now, for the first time in the modern history of the two ancient neighbors, economic relations will become an important part of their bilateral relations, just as it was thousands of years ago.

In June 2003, India reached an agreement with China over Tibet and Sikkim respectively. The agreement not only attempted to resolve the geopolitical issues associated with the areas in question, but also established a landmark cross-border trade agreement. Specifically, India formally recognized the Tibetan autonomous region as part of the People's Republic of China, while China, agreed to border trade through the north-east Indian state of Sikkim. The trade agreement effectively demonstrated Beijing's recognition of India's claim over that area. In sum, the agreement functioned to boost bilateral relations between the two Asian countries, which have been plagued by dismal relations over problematic border issues.

India's recognition of Tibet did not affect the position of the exiled leadership of the region. The spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, who lives in the Indian town of Dharamsala, said he still wished to pursue talks with China regarding Tibet's independence. Also notable is the fact that the Indian government has made a subtle distinction between the Tibet autonomous region and the whole of Tibet.

Other Significant Relations:

Relations with the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (Confederation of Independent States, CIS)

India has had a long and stable relationship with the then Soviet Union, which dates back to the independence of India. The Soviet Union has been the largest trading partner for India as well as its biggest and most reliable supplier of defense items. Though in the initial years the Soviet Union adopted a neutral stance in the growing tensions with Pakistan. In fact, in 1951, the Soviet Union attempted to encourage some Pakistani Army officials to stage a coup. However, the coup failed and the Soviet interest in Pakistan as a cold war ally subsided.

The real growth in bilateral relations came during the period of Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev, from the late 1960s. In the next two decades, the Indo-Soviet ties blossomed in all aspects-political, military, economic, science and technology and culture. The real turning point, however, came in early 1971 when India and the Soviet Union signed a Peace and Friendship Treaty, which was literally a defense pact as well. The treaty had its first test fairly soon as India and Pakistan went to war over the Bangladesh issue in December 1971. The Soviet Union lived up to its part of the

India Review 2016 Page 160 of 408 pages India bargain by dispatching a flotilla to the Bay of Bengal in order to counter the American Seventh Fleet that had been sent in order to pressure India.

Since then the bilateral ties moved from strength to strength, with barely any differences or tensions. Though India maintained its non-aligned nature in the Cold War, it did not affect the relationship with the Soviets.

However, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) had major repercussions for the bilateral ties. India's substantial trade with the Soviet Union plummeted and has yet to recover. The military supply relationships were also disrupted, although temporarily. In the early and mid nineties, Indian defense forces did face some awkward moments as the Russians had been unable to supply spare parts for several critical equipment including aircraft and naval ships.

The relationship found its feet again in January 1993 when Russian President Boris Yeltsin visited New Delhi, in order to cement the relationship. The two sides have since then also signed a long pending deal under which Russia will construct a 2000 megawatt nuclear power plant in southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu. The deal is the biggest single commercial deal between the two nations and also is the first time that the Russians are constructing a nuclear power plant in India.

The new Russian President Vladimir Putin has also emphasized the importance of Indo-Russian relations and has sent some of his senior ministers on visits to India. He himself visited India in October, barely six months after his inauguration, indicating the importance of Indo-Russian relations for his administration.

In May 2000, when Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his decision to visit India later in the year, the comparisons had already begun with the visit by the U.S. President Bill Clinton in March 2000.

It is a rare year when India has received the presidents of both the countries and hence the Indian media was quick to draw parallels between the Clinton and Putin visits. Both visits were four days in duration; both stayed in the same hotel and even the same suite in New Delhi; and both were seen as path-breaking visits for the bilateral relationship.

In the end, Putin's visit may have yielded more direct and immediate results for Russia than Clinton's did for America. For, Putin walked away with the largest ever defense deal signed between India and Russia-amounting to over four billion dollars.

The Putin visit was key for India and Russia in several ways. The visit-the first by a Russian president to India since the trip by Boris Yeltsin in 1993-was extremely crucial in bringing the bilateral relations between the two countries back on the track. Even though there have been no

India Review 2016 Page 161 of 408 pages India major differences between India and Russia in the last eight years the relationship was certainly missing the special warmth that had been the highlight of the Indo-Soviet friendship.

India did not spare anything to make the visit a success. Putin, along with Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee addressed a joint session of both the houses of the Indian Parliament. He also held prolonged discussions with Vajpayee and his ministerial team about reinforcing various aspects of the bilateral relationship including cooperation on nuclear power production. Russia is already constructing a 2000 megawatt nuclear power complex in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu and is keen to win more such contracts from India, which has among the most ambitious nuclear power production projects in the world. Russia and India have also agreed to regenerate their age- old cooperation in the field of science and technology, which had taken a backseat during the last decade largely due to the Russian preoccupation with its internal political and economic situation.

The Putin visit certainly succeeded in reinforcing the relationship and also brought back memories of the good old days for the two countries. A number of crucial decisions were taken during the Putin visit. India and Russia signed its biggest ever defense deal when India agreed to buy 300 T- 90 tanks and a 45,000 ton aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov from the Russians. India also has the license to manufacture 140 multi-role Sukhoi Su 30 MKI aircraft.

The two countries also signed a new treaty reiterating the strong ties that have existed between the two nations since Indian independence. The Strategic Partnership Declaration calls for an annual summit meeting between the two nations and is designed to elevate the relationship to a much higher orbit. The two countries have also decided to redevelop their economic relationship. In the Soviet days' Soviet Union was the biggest trading partner for India. However, bilateral trade has since collapsed and during Putin's visit, as well as some other earlier high level contacts, the need to re-establish the economic relationship was highlighted.

A potential disagreement between the two allies was nipped in the bud in May 2001 during the visit of Indian External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh to Moscow. Russia had been worried over recent statements from Delhi that seemed to be in support of the controversial National Missile Defense system proposed by the U.S. administration. Singh assured Putin and his team that India had not changed its position on continued support for the Anti Ballistic Missle Treaty and that it had only found merit in some arguments of Washington about the need to update ABM and the new threat scenarios emerging across the globe. Singh used his visit to cement the traditionally warm ties further and India and Russia have agreed to work together in various fields including defense and science and technology.

In recent years, Russia has tried to play a key role in minimizing tensions between India and Pakistan.

India Review 2016 Page 162 of 408 pages India

Relations with the United States

For most of the time since independence, Indian relations with the United States (U.S.) have been cool and low-key, despite the fact that the two countries are the world's biggest democracies. Perhaps cool relations are due to the fact that the United States chose to side with Pakistan ever since Indian independence. The U.S. sided with Pakistan in the Kashmir conflict that erupted at the time of independence. The U.S. supported Pakistan both militarily in the battlefield by supplying weapons, and politically at the United Nations by moving anti-India resolutions at the United Nations Security Council. Although the U.S. supplied some key weapons to India in its conflict with China in 1962, the relations between the countries again dipped soon afterwards. In the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pakistan wars, the U.S. took a much more proactive pro-Pakistan stance, moving part of its seventh fleet into the Bay of Bengal during the latter conflict.

U.S. leaders have traditionally viewed India with suspicion, despite its leadership of the non-aligned movement. The U.S. believed India to be a key ally of the Soviet Union in the cold war, rather than a neutral country. The U.S. also found itself increasingly dependent upon Pakistan to counter the Soviets in central and south Asia. It invited Pakistan to join the Central Treaty Organization and South East Asian Treaty Organization, the two military pacts for the Asian region, led by the U.S. The U.S. need for Pakistan increased even more after the Iranian revolution of 1980 that robbed the Americans of a key ally in the region. The proximity of the U.S. and Pakistan did push India towards the Soviet Union, which soon emerged as its largest supplier of weapons as well its biggest trading partner. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan only made matters worse for Indo-U.S. relations as the U.S. began using Pakistan as a base to fight the Red Army in Afghanistan by arming the mujahideen.

A brief improvement did come in 1978 with the visit of U.S. President Jimmy Carter to India, but it was overshadowed by the subsequent developments in Afghanistan. But the relationship began showing real signs of improvement and stability with the end of Cold War and the subsequent break-up of the Soviet Union.

Indian-U.S. relations began improving in the 1980s, with expanding economic ties and a dialogue on a range of issues. The end of the Cold War offered unprecedented opportunities to further improve bilateral relations and cooperate on numerous common interests. Collaboration in science and technology, which began in the 1960s in agriculture, expanded to a broad range of areas and multilateral issues. The process gained immediacy and urgency in the late 1990s, especially due to the changing relations between the U.S. and China. The U.S. administration can use India as a counterweight to China and hence is keen to develop relations. Yet another and perhaps more critical binding force came from the increasing threat of Islamic terrorism. Both the U.S. and India have been affected by the Islamic extremists and realized the need for cooperation to counter this growing menace. In 1999, the two sides have formed a working group to enhance cooperation in this field.

India Review 2016 Page 163 of 408 pages India

Trade is yet another area that has brought the two sides together. Ever since India launched its economic liberalization program in 1991, the U.S. has become the largest foreign investor in India and is the second largest trading partner for India, behind the European Union. The two countries have recently begun regular dialogue on trade issues in order to smooth the rough edges in bilateral trade.

The nuclear tests conducted in May 1998 by the government of Prime Minister Vajpayee and the corresponding nuclear testing by Pakistan did add some strain to the U.S.-Indian relations. The Indian government clarified it felt increasingly threatened by its surrounding nuclear environment and it conducted the tests in order to reassure its people that their national interest would be protected.

President Clinton imposed wide-ranging sanctions on India pursuant to the 1994 Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act. The United States encouraged India to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty immediately and without condition. The U.S. also called for restraint in missile and nuclear testing and deployment in both India and Pakistan.

More recently, the United States has expressed concern over the ongoing conflict in Kashmir. The U.S. has called for a dialogue between the two sides and for Pakistan to do all it can to persuade the insurgents to pull back from Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir.

A major turning point in the bilateral relations came in July 1999 during the Kargil war between India and Pakistan. It was during this war that for the first time the U.S. took a decisively pro-India stance, literally forcing Pakistan to withdraw its own army and also the insurgents from the Indian territory. The U.S. also again criticized Pakistan for its continued aid to the militants in Kashmir, urging the Pakistani-leadership to cut its relations with these groups. The U.S. has also been worried for some time about the increasing grip of Islamic extremists over the Pakistani government and hence has been moving away from Pakistan slowly but surely. In addition, the U.S. has clearly stated that it supports the Indian position that the Kashmir dispute can be resolved only through negotiations and that it is a bilateral issues rather than one that needs international mediation - one of the basic demands of Pakistan.

The development of Indo-U.S. bilateral ties received a major boost in March 2000 when U.S. President Bill Clinton visited India, becoming the first U.S. president to visit India in over 22 years. The visit, which resulted in a series of agreements, boosted scientific, economic and political relations. The relations were further cemented during the visit of Prime Minister Vajpayee to the U.S. in September 2000. Vajpayee addressed a joint session of the U.S. Congress and also held substantial talks with President Clinton and signed trade agreements opening Indian markets to the U.S. farm exports.

India Review 2016 Page 164 of 408 pages India

The U.S. for its part supported India's claim for a position as permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and also agreed to back the Indian-sponsored convention against terrorism at the United Nations General Assembly.

The general improvement in relations continued through 2001 as well, with regular high-level contacts between the two administrations, ending speculation that a change in the administration in Washington could affect the improvement in ties. U.S. President George W. Bush sent senior officials from his administration soon after taking over in order to ensure that the momentum of the development in relations continued. He also agreed to visit India in early 2002, indicating the priority he placed on developing ties with India, which has become a strategic partner for the United States in a rapidly evolving Asia, where China is often considered a rival rather than a partner. Since the late 1990s, the United States has been eager to develop healthy relations with India, South Korea and Japan - the three Asian neighbors of China with whom the U.S. feels it can have a mutually beneficial partnership and also 'box China in'.

The U.S. was also flattered by the early positive response from India on the National Missle Defense program, a self-declared top priority for the U.S. Even while its European and Asian allies were debating the issue, the Indian government said it saw some positive elements in the NMD, a statement that caused flutter not just in New Delhi, but Moscow as well. India was quick to clarify the statement did not mean total support for the NMD and tried to convince old allies, the Russians, that India was not jumping ship. Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh visited the United States in May 2001 and had his first contacts with the administration, including with President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The increased threat of terrorist attacks against United States personnel in Asia in June 2001 also helped India and the United States work together in eliminating this threat. Four persons were arrested in New Delhi in June 2001 for allegedly planning a bombing attack on the United States embassy in Delhi. The persons were allegedly part of a group funded by the Saudi national, Osama bin Laden, who has been termed as the most wanted person by the United States. U.S. officials also suspected that bin Laden played a role in threats to its personnel and defense forces in areas as far as Bahrain.

The events following the September 11 terror attacks in the United States increased the pace of development of ties between New Delhi and Washington. India was one of the first countries to offer all support possible to the United States for conducting any operation in Afghanistan. It also supported the American right to respond to the terrorist actions and to seek out the persons responsible behind the terror. The world's two largest democracies had the same enemy, India affirmed, pointing that it too had been suffering from terrorism exported from Afghanistan. U.S. President George Bush acknowledged the threats faced by India and said that the global war on terrorism needed to tackle all the groups behind terrorism, no matter where. He began by including in his list of terrorist organizations, a couple of groups accused by India of terrorism.

India Review 2016 Page 165 of 408 pages India

Moreover, since September 11, India and the U.S. have been in constant high level contacts over the developments in Afghanistan. India began to share its political and military intelligence resources in Afghanistan with the U.S. India has had very good relations with the Northern Alliance and this relationship came in handy for the U.S. to build up a working relation with the Northern Alliance and coordinate the war effort in Afghanistan

Within days of the fall of Kabul to the advancing armies of the Northern Alliance, an Indian diplomatic mission to Afghanistan, the first-ever since New Delhi closed its embassy in Kabul in 1996, arrived in the war-torn country. The mission included a special envoy for Afghanistan and arrived at the Bagram airfield near Kabul. The mission also included a medical and nursing component, which will man the nearly 40-year-old Indira Gandhi hospital in Kabul. The three- story hospital for women and children, which was commissioned in the late sixties, was also the best equipped in the entire country and provided not only treatment to women and children but also trained Afghan doctors. India decided to revive the hospital, whose facilities had deteriorated in the past few years, during the visit of a high-level official delegation to Kabul in November to re- establish its diplomatic presence in the Afghan capital. India sent a team of eight doctors and other medical staff to help put the hospital operations back on track. Even when it had no official presence in Kabul, India continued to provide medical relief to the people of Afghanistan. India has been operating a hospital in Farkhor, on the Afghanistan-Tajikistan border, for more than a year to provide treatment to Northern Alliance fighters and refugees fleeing from the Taliban rule. Assassinated Northern Alliance commander Ahmed Shah Masood was also reportedly brought to the hospital after being critically wounded in a suicide bomb attack by two Arabs disguised as television reporters in early September 2001.

India's growing importance in the new setup in Kabul was evident within days of the appointment; several ministers of the interim administration made visits to New Delhi to discuss ways of developing bilateral relations. India also announced it would open consulate services in five Afghan cities including Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif and Jalalabad.

India continues to be an ally of the United States on the war against terrorism in recent years. India, however, was not a supporter of the United States' invasion and occupation of Iraq which began in 2003. Three Indian nationals working for a Kuwaiti company in Iraq were taken hostage in 2004; the government of India deployed an envoy to try to secure their release.

In 2005, even as India and Pakistan were on the road to constructive dialogue, relations between India and the United States suffered a setback. At issue was the decision by the United States to sell Pakistan F-16 fighter jets. Faced with India's anger at this decision, the United States explained that it was selling the jets to India's rival to thank Pakistan for its help with the war on terror. The United States offered to sell combat aircraft to India as well. Although India said it would consider the offer, it was not entirely assuaged. Indeed, India pointed to an ideological

India Review 2016 Page 166 of 408 pages India inconsistency on the part of the United States as regards Pakistan's involvement in the unregulated spread of nuclear technology. Notably, a Pakistani nuclear scientist, Dr. Khan, is believed to have supplied nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

On his first visit to India in early March 2006, United States President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh forged a nuclear accord. In the deal, India would have access to civil nuclear technology from the United States in return for opening its nuclear facilities to inspection. The United States also agreed to drop its objections to a proposed pipeline, which would supply gas from Iran to India via Pakistan. Prime Minister Singh noted that India's military and civilian nuclear facilities would be separated, with 14 of the 22 nuclear facilities being classified for civilian use, in order to facilitate the requisite inspections process. The Indian leader praised the deal saying, "We made history today."

The deal came on the heels of a similar agreement forged between India and France. India has been eager to craft productive agreements with other countries because of its growing population and its concomitant need for increased energy supplies. While only three percent of India's electricity has been derived from nuclear power in recent years, up to 25 percent of the country's electricity is expected to come from nuclear power by 2050. According to the Uranium Information Center, India has limited coal and uranium reserves, however, its substantial thorium reserves could potentially fuel a nuclear power program on an extended basis.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), hailed the accord and said that India was "an important partner in the non-proliferation regime." For India, the agreement held great significance as it effectively ended several years of international isolation due to its nuclear policy. Within India, however, there is residual opposition to the deal by adherents to India's long-standing tradition of non-alignment. For them, the notion of non- alignment has been undermined by closer ties with the United States.

Like his Indian counterpart, President Bush also characterized the agreement as "historic," but warned that its actualization would depend upon ratification by the United States Congress. In that legislative body, it was expected that there might be objections to the deal because India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). For supporters of the NPT, there have been objections to the fact that the deal sidesteps the existence of India's nuclear weapons program. Meanwhile, other critics have noted that the deal prevents consistency on the matter of nuclear proliferation, pointing to Washington's opposition to Iran's nuclear program.

In anticipation of such criticism, Bush said, "Congress has got to understand that it's in our economic interests that India have a civilian nuclear power industry to help take the pressure off the global demand for energy." Bush also highlighted growing bilateral trade between India and the United States, as well as cooperation against terrorism. Additionally, he called for resolution between India and Pakistan regarding the conflict over Kashmir.

India Review 2016 Page 167 of 408 pages India

Bush's visit to India was opposed by various factions, including communist parties and Islamic groups. Nevertheless, in July 2007, the United States and India completed negotiations on the bilateral agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation, also known as the "123 agreement." This agreement, signed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and External Affairs Minister Mukherjee on October 10, 2008, governs civil nuclear trade between the two countries and opens the door for American and Indian firms to participate in each other's civil nuclear energy sector.

Positive United States-India relations continued with the new Obama administration in recent times. In July 2009, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to India to launch the “Strategic Dialogue,” which called for collaboration in a number of areas, including energy, climate change, trade, education, and counterterrorism. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Washington, D.C. in late November 2009 for the first state visit of the Obama administration. President Barack Obama's first state dinner in 2009, the United States leader played host to Indian Prime Minister Singh. The inaugural session of the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue was held June 1- 4, 2010 in Washington, D.C. The event was very successful and showed progress in the U.S. India relationship. President Barack Obama was visited India in the fall of 2010 where he received a warm welcome from the Indian people.

Special Report

On Feb. 13, 2012, Israel's embassies in India and Georgia were struck by bomb attacks. In the Indian capital city, a magnetic bomb attached to a vehicle left the wife of an Israeli diplomat wounded as she traveled to retrieve her children from school at the American embassy. She was said to be in stable condition in a New Delhi hospital. In the Georgian capital, a bomb was discovered attached to a car in the Israeli diplomatic fleet. Georgian police were able to defuse the bomb after an Israeli embassy employee alerted them to the situation in Tbilisi.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasted no time in accusing Iran of being behind the two bombs, characterizing Iran as "the greatest exporter of terror in the world." Netanyahu also observed that there were recent thwarted attacks on Jews and Israelis in places such as Azerbaijan and Thailand,. Speaking of this trend, the Israeli prime minister noted, "In all these cases, the elements behind the attacks were Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah." Israel said that its foreign missions would be placed on high alert, given the current landscape.

While Iran offered no immediate response, it was certainly the case that Tehran had promised to seek revenge for a number of targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, which that country blames on Israel.

India Review 2016 Page 168 of 408 pages India

*** See above for information related to national security threats emanating from Pakistan centering on the contentious issue of Kashmir. See "Political Conditions" in this Country Review for more information related to threats to national security, particularly in the form of Pakistan- based Islamist terrorism. ***

Special Report

U.S. President Obama and Indian PM Modi announce new era in bilateral friendship and cooperation

During his official visit to the world's largest democracy -- India -- United States President Barack Obama planted a tree and laid a wreath at the memorial for Mahatma Gandhi at Raj Ghat in New Delhi. Paying his respects to the father of independent India, President Obama paused for contemplation at Gandhi's memorial, and placed two handfuls of rose petals on top. President Obama also was the main guest at India's Republic Day celebrations where he was warmly received by the enthusiastic Indian people.

It should be noted that Indian Prime Minister Modi broke protocol to personally receive President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as they arrived at the airport in New Dehli. Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed President Obama's historic visit, noting that India and the United States were now embarking on a "new journey" of cooperation. President Obama struck a similar tone, saying that his country welcomed its friendship with India.

In the realm of foreign relations, on Jan. 25, 2015, President Obama issued a joint announcement with Indian Prime Minister Modi on civilian nuclear cooperation. At issue was a breakthrough pact that would facilitate the supply of American civilian nuclear technology to India. Also on the agenda were new renewable energy options. United States Ambassador Richard Verma said: "It opens the door for US and other companies to come forward and actually help India towards developing nuclear power and support its non carbon-based energy production." The United States and India also agreed to cooperate on fighting terrorism.

At the start of February 2015, Indian oficials said that the "breakthrough" civilian nuclear deal could be finalized later in the year. United States officials have said that two items were pending before the agreement could be finalized: 1. India would have to ratify a United Nations nuclear convention -- the International Atomic Energy Agency's Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC); and 2. An insurance concord would have to be established preventing suppliers from being subject to draconian lawsuits in the event of nuclear disasters.

India Review 2016 Page 169 of 408 pages India

Special Report

Indian mission in Afghanistan targeted by Islamist militants

December 2015 was marked by a spate of attacks across Afghanistan at the hands of the notorious Islamist extremist group, the Taliban. The start of 2016 fared no better with an attack on the Indian diplomatic mission in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e-Sharif. The assailants were not able to penetrate the compound for the Indian consulate and instead had occupied a building close by. Nevertheless, there were reports of gun battles and explosions at the scene. It should be noted that Indian diplomatic missions have long been favored targets for Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan. The Indian embassy in Kabul was hit in both 2008 and 2009 with deadly consequences, while the Indian consulate in Jalalabad was struck in 2013 and also led to the deaths of several people. In 2015, the Indian consulate in Herat was the target of attack by gunmen, with this attack at the start of 2016 being the latest effort of this type.

Written by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief at CountryWatch.com. See Bibliography for sources. Supplementary sources: The United Nations Security Council, IPCS, New Delhi, IDSA, New Delhi, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, The Times of India, New Delhi.

National Security

External Threats

India has a history of tumultuous relations with Pakistan. Their nuclear capabilities exacerbate the risk posed by the periodic flare-ups of tension, to each other and to the entire region. China, India, and Pakistan all claim sections of volatile Kashmir, the world's largest disputed territory. India's poor relations with Pakistan devolved after attacks on the parliament in 2001 and attacks in Mumbai (Bombay) in 2008, which both of were believed to be carried out by a Pakistan-based terror group, Lashkar e-Taiba, although the parliament attack was orchestrated in coordination with Jaish e-Mohammed, which is also Pakistan-based. India believes Pakistan-based Islamic

India Review 2016 Page 170 of 408 pages India extremist groups, of which Kashmir may be a major rallying call, is the greatest pose the greatest threat to national security.

That said, in late June 2009, faced with violent attacks by Maoist rebels, the Indian government officially banned the Maoist Communist Party of India on the basis that it was a terrorist group. Indeed, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh characterized the Maoist rebels as posing a grave internal security threat to the country. One area of West Bengal was said to be under total Maoist control, and the Indian government warned that five states around the eastern and central part of the country could be subject to Maoist attacks, particularly in crowded areas traversed by civilians. In fact, Maoist landmine blasts had already left a hefty death toll on Indian security forces.

Note: Most of the rest of India's highly militarized border with China is also disputed.

Crime

India is a substantial hub of narcotics trafficking activity. It is the largest producer in the world of legal opiates, used in pharmaceuticals. Some of the product makes its way to international narcotics markets, however. Methaqualone is also produced there and India remains vulnerable to money laundering.

Insurgencies

Since 1989, the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir has claimed as many as 60,000 lives. See "Political Conditions" for a full accounting of this matter. Sporadic ethnic violence plagues several states in northeast India. Maoist extremists are active in East Central and Southern India. In the north- eastern Indian state of Assam, separatist rebels, the United Liberation Front of Assam (Ulfa), have been active.

Terrorism

Terrorist violence continues to pose a direct threat to India's security. In recent years, numerous terrorist attacks there have been linked to the ongoing conflict in Jammu and Kashmir (see above section on insurgencies). Attacks have occurred in other regions of India, as well.

In 2001, a group of terrorists launched an attack on the Indian Parliament House in New Delhi. The Indian government accused two Pakistan-based terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e- Mohammad for the attack.

In 2002, gunmen stormed a Hindu temple in the western state of Gudjarat, killing 25 people. Later

India Review 2016 Page 171 of 408 pages India in 2002, there were clashes between militant Muslims and police in the city of Bangalore resulting in the deaths of five militants and injuries to 13 policemen.

In 2003, over 50 people were killed and more than 130 were injured when two car bombs exploded in India's main commercial city, Bombay (Mumbai). There were suggestions that a militant Islamic student group may have been responsible. Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) is a group aligned with the Pakistan-based militant Islamic group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was believed to have been responsible for the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament in 2001 (discussed above).

In 2005, a series of three bomb attacks left close to 60 people dead and over 200 injured in India's capital city of New Dehli. A militant Islamic group by the name of Inqilabi claimed responsibility.

In early 2006, three bomb blasts hit the northen Indian city of Varanasi. There was no immediate claim of responsibility but because of Veranasi's importance as the religious center for Hinduism, there was some speculation that the attacks might have been carried out by anti-Western and/or Islamic militant factions.

In mid-2006, a series of seven bombs exploded on trains in Bombay (Mumbai). Reports suggested that hundred of people had died. Again, Islamic militants were believed to have been responsible.

In early 2007, a train bound from the Indian capital of Dehli to the Pakistan city of Lahore was hit by a series of explosions. More than 65 people were reported to have been killed and several more injured as a result of the blasts and resulting flames. A spokesperson for India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asserted that the explosions were an "act of terror."

A series of well-coordinated bombs were detonated across the historic city of Jaipur in India on May 13, 2008. The death toll was reported as 60 people, however, this number was subject to change. The bombs blasts occurred within seven minutes of one another and went off in close proximity to monuments. The city, located in Rajasthan, has been a popular tourist destination for years and has had no history of violence or religious strife. Officials said that the attacks appeared to be acts of terrorism although there was no immediate claim of responsibility. The motivation behind the bombings was thusly something of a mystery. While Jaipur is inhabited mostly by Hindus, it has also home to Muslim minority.

In June 2008, a bomb blast at a market in the north-eastern Indian state of Assam left at least six people dead and about 80 others injured. Authorities placed the blame for the bombing on separatist rebels, likely allied with or belonging to the United Liberation Front of Assam (Ulfa). Experts suggested that the attack may have been carried out by a faction of Ulfa opposed to the

India Review 2016 Page 172 of 408 pages India group's decision to carry out a truce.

On November 26, 2008, suspected Islamic militants waged a series of simultaneous terror attacks in the heart of India's commercial capital of Mumbai. At least 175 people died as a result and hundreds more were wounded in the attacks that lasted days. As noted above, it was believed to be carried out by a Pakistan-based terror group, Lashkar e-Taiba.

Note: India is party to all twelve of the international conventions and protocols pertaining to terrorism.

*** See "Political Conditions" and "Foreign Relations" in this Country Review for more information related to threats to national security, particularly in the form of Pakistan-based Islamist terrorism. ***

Defense Forces

Military Data

Military Branches:

Army, Navy (includes naval air arm), Air Force, Coast Guard

Eligible age to enter service:

16-18 years age for voluntary service (Army 17 1/2, Air Force 17, Navy 16 1/2); no conscription; women may join as officers, but in combat roles as pilots only

Mandatory Service Terms:

N/A

Manpower in general population-fit for military service:

India Review 2016 Page 173 of 408 pages India males age 16-49: 249,531,562 females age 16-49: 240,039,958

Manpower reaching eligible age annually:

Male: 12,151,065

Female: 10,745,891

Military Expenditures-Percent of GDP:

2.4%

Appendix: Kashmir

Introduction

"Jammu and Kashmir came into being as a single political and geographical entity following the Treaty of Amristar between the British Government and Gulab singh signed on March 16, 1846. The Treaty handed over the control of the Kashmir State to the Dogra ruler of Jammu who had earlier annexed Ladakh. Thus a new State comprising three distinct religions of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh was formed with Maharaja Gulab Singh as its founder ruler."

Source: Government of Jammu and Kashmir http://jammukashmir.nic.in/

Geography

"A major portion of Jammu and Kashmir State consists of the western Himalayas, which besides many lofty mountain ranges with varying heights of 3000 to 6000 metres and above, also abound in rivers, lakes, passes, glaciers, plateaus and plains. The number of streams, brooks, hill torrents and rivers is also fairly large. The most important rivers are the Indus, Chenab, Jehlum and Ravi."

Source: Government of Jammu and Kashmir http://jammukashmir.nic.in/

India Review 2016 Page 174 of 408 pages India

Cultural Background

"Jammu and Kashmir has the distinction of having multifaceted, variegated and unique cultural blend, making it distinct from the rest of the country, not only from the different cultural forms and heritage, but from geographical, demographically, ethical, social entities, forming a distinct spectrum of diversity and diversions into Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh, all professing diverse religion, language and culture, but continuously intermingling, making it vibrant specimens of Indian Unity amidst diversity. Its different cultural forms like art and architecture, fair and festivals, rites and rituals, seer and sagas, language and mountains, embedded in ageless period of history, speak volumes of unity and diversity with unparalleled cultural cohesion and cultural service.

While the Kashmir has been the highest learning centre of Sanskrit and Persian where early Indo- Aryanic civilization has originated and flourshed, it has also been embracing point of advent of Islam bringing its fold finest traditions of Persian civilization, tolerance, brotherhood and sacrifice.

Ladakh on the other hand, has been the highest and living centre of Tantrayan Buddhism. Jammu, the same way, has been the seat of Rajas and Maharajas which have cemented and enriched the cultural, historical and social bonds of all these diverse ethnic and linguistic divisions of the state. The ancient archeological monuments and remnants speak volume of the district cultural traditions of the state.

Kashmir is rightly said to be Nature's grand finale of beauty. In this masterpiece of earth's creation seasons in strong individuality vie with one another in putting up exquisite patterns of charm and loveliness. Nature has left an indelible mark on the folk performances of Kashmir as they are intimately interlined with the moods and movements of the seasons.

Jammu the land of the Dogras, offer an entirely different fare of dances and music. Over the centuries long spell of seperation from their soldier, husbands and brothers have led the hardy but graceful women of the Duggar to evolve many diverting dances and songs to keep themselves in cheer in their free moments. The songs of seperation the ever increasing yearning for reunion with the beloved, the hard life on the mountain slopes and various other themes connected with their day-to-day life find their echo in folk songs and dances.

Ladakh is the repository of ancient cultural heritage. It is the only place in the world where Tantrayans Buddhism is practised as a way of life. People of this region are deeply drenched in music, dance and drama which embody religious fervour. Ladakhi songs and dances are simple in thought, content and performance to. Ladakhi dances reveal the simple and noble nature of the Ladakhi people. Song and drama both are the means towards salvation."

Source: Government of Jammu and Kashmir http://jammukashmir.nic.in/

India Review 2016 Page 175 of 408 pages India

Key Data regarding Jammu and Kashmir

CAPITAL: Summer(May-October)- Srinagar Winters(Novemenber-April)- Jammu LANGUAGES : Urdu, Kashmiri, Hindi, Dogri, Pahari, Ladakhi, POPULATION: 77,18,700 POPULATION GROWTH RATE 29% SEX RATIO :923 (Females per 1000 males) AREA : 2,22,236 Sq Kms. POPULATION DENSITY : 34 (persons per sq. km) POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LINE:(1987-88) 13.9% URBANISATION RATIO 23.83(All India average: 25.7) PERCENTAGE OF WORK FORCE IN POPULATION : 44.3 % MAIN WORKERS TO TOTAL POPULATION :30.37 % (All India Average 33.45 %) AGRICULTURE WORKERS/TOTAL POPULATION :49 % (All India Average 24.94 %) TOTAL REPORTED AREA 24.16 Lakh Hectares NET SOWN AREA 30% AVERAGE SIZE OF LAND HOLDING 0.83 Hectares NET IRRIGATED AREA/ NET SOWN AREA 42% IRRIGATION INTENSITY 144% GROSS CROPPED AREA 10.73 Lakh Hectares CROPPING INTENSITY 146% AREA UNDER HIGH YIELDING VARIETIES : 9.19 Lakh Hectares FOOD GRAIN PRODUCTION 14.55 lakh MTs LIVE STOCK POPULATION (1992)87.07 lakhs TOTAL NUMBER OF BANK BRANCHES(March,1997) : 950 AVERAGE POPULATION PER BANK BRANCH: 8000 (National Average: 15000) TOTAL BANK DEPOSITS (March,1997) : Rs. 5326.85 Crores

Source: Government of Jammu and Kashmir http://jammukashmir.nic.in/

Population of Jammu and Kashmir

"The projected population (1995) of the State, excluding the illegally occupied areas by Pakistan and China, is 76.77 lakhs.The State with its summer and winter capitals at Srinagar and Jammu, respectively, is divided into 14 districts.

India Review 2016 Page 176 of 408 pages India

In population, the State is one of the smallest in the country and accounts for less than one percent of the people enumerated in 1981. Population showed sluggish growth in the first six decades of the present century and the decadal growth rate ranged from 5.75 to 10.42 during 1901 to 1961. The latest two decades have, however, shown growth of 29.65%and 29.69%, which reflects considerable fall in death rate without any substantial fall in birth rate in the post independence years."

GROWTH OF POPULATION The State has registered a net addition of 13.71 lakh persons raising the population from 46.16 lakhs in 1971 to 59.87 lakhs in 1981. The state population contributes less than one percent of the country’s population. Nevertheless, the rate of growth observed during the last two decades at 29.65 % and 29.69% has been substantially higher than the national growth rates of 24.80 % and 25% respectively. Thus, the decadal growth rate of population in the state that was around 10% in the proceeding three decades has almost trebled in the last two decades. The annual growth rate of 2.97% during 1971 –81 is the highest the state has ever experienced.

RURAL AND URBAN POPULATION As against one third in Maharashtra and West Bengal and one fourth in Karantaka, only one fifth of the population in J&K resides in urban areas. 23.83 % population has been recorded as urban in the state against the National Average of 25.72%. Jammu city has recorded very rapid growth and presently ranks as the 48th bigest city in the country. Besides the cities of Jammu and Srinagar, other important towns are the district headquarters of Anantnag, Pulwama,Budgam, Baramulla, Kupwara, Udhampur, Kathua,Rajouri ,Poonch ,Doda, Leh and Kargil.. The remaining towns continue to have many rural features and pursuits reflecting the state’s predominant Agro-pastoral economy.

HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT Against the All India Level of 36.23 % as per 1981 census, the rate of literacy for the State is indicated as 26.67% with 45.56% for urban areas and 212.63% in the rural areas, 36.29% among males and 15.88% only among females. District Jammu with 42.86% tops the literacy level with male literacy at 52.60% and female literacy at 32.24%. A special emphasis is being laid on development of human resources in the State. There are more than 15000 schools with an enrolment of about 1.5 million. Similarly, there are 32 colleges with an enrolment of about 0.40 lakhs. For higher studies, there are now three universities one in Jammu and others in Kashmir. The total number of students in general education at the university stage is about 0.4 lakhs which includes 14083 females. The number has gone up six fold since 1950-51 when it was 2669 only. The professional Institutions include two Engineering Colleges in Srinagar and Jammu, four Polytechnics, 37 Industrial Training Institutes with an enrolment of about 4000. There is one Medical Institute, four Medical Colleges, 100 Hospitals, 343 Primary Health Centers and 3326 Medical Sub Centers with total bed strength of more than 10,000 in the State. The availability of human resources includes about 23000 graduates and post graduates, 4500 Degree/Diploma

India Review 2016 Page 177 of 408 pages India

Engineers, about 12000 ITI trained personnel, and other skilled personnel.

Source: Government of Jammu and Kashmir http://jammukashmir.nic.in/

Summary: Conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir

Kashmir is a fiercely disputed territory claimed by both India and Pakistan. The disputed has caused tense conditions on the subcontinent that have frequently resulted in armed conflict. Although a final status agreement has yet to be reached, the Line of Control that separates Indian- and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir serves as the de facto international border between the two countries. The geopolitical importance of the dispute has been confounded by both sides’ acquisition of nuclear weapons in 1998. In recent years, India has accused Pakistan of backing militants that have attacked civilian and military targets inside Indian-controlled Kashmir. Despite not being able to comprehensively resolve the conflict, India and Pakistan have made some progress in recent years in agreeing to establish transportation links such as a bus service across the Line of Control.

Background: Indo-Pakistani relations and Kashmir

First Kashmir War: 1947-48

After being granted its independence in 1947, British India was partitioned into India, which had a Hindu majority, and Pakistan, which had a Muslim majority. At first, Maharaja Hari Singh was given a choice as to which state he wanted the region of Kashmir to join. Singh initially wanted Kashmir to remain independent and was hesitant to allow Kashmiris to vote on the issue. Frustrated by this, Pakistan invaded backed an invasion of Kashmir by tribal forces, eventually ordering Pakistani troops to invade as well. Singh subsequently agreed to join India and requested Indian military assistance to expel the Pakistanis. Pakistan took its case to the United Nations Security Council, arguing that Kashmir’s accession to India was illegal because the people of Kashmir were not given a vote on the issue. India also approached the Security Council, demanding that Pakistan withdraw its forces. The Security Council called for Pakistan to withdraw its troops and also called for a plebiscite to be held under U.N. auspices to determine Kashmir’s future status. Both sides nonetheless maintained their troop presence in Kashmir and a plebiscite was never held.

In 1949, India and Pakistan signed the Karachi agreement, which established a cease-fire line to be monitored by the United Nations (U.N.). The cease-fire line eventually became know as the Line of Control and demarcates Indian- and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, serving as a de facto international border. Under the cease-fire agreement, Pakistan controlled one-third of Kashmir while India administered two-thirds. In 1954, Kashmir’s formal accession to India was

India Review 2016 Page 178 of 408 pages India completed.

In 1962-63, the United States (U.S.) and the United Kingdom (U.K) sponsored talks between India and Pakistan. No agreement was reached. In 1965, India and Pakistan went to war again. Pakistan launched a covert offensive across the cease-fire line into Indian-administered Kashmir. In response, India crossed Pakistan’s international border at Lahore. After three weeks, both sides agreed to a U.N-sponsored ceasefire. Subsequent negotiations held in January 1966 in Tashkent yielded an agreement in which both sides pledged to solve their disputes through peaceful means. India returned the territory it had seized during the war.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

In 1971, Pakistan became engulfed by civil war. East Pakistan revolted against the West Pakistani army, demanding regional autonomy. The situation produced a flood of East Pakistani refugees in India. India provided support to the separatists, eventually invading East Pakistan. As a result, East Pakistan became an independent country on December 6, 1971 and subsequently changed its name to Bangladesh. The U.S. supported Pakistan during the conflict, providing arms and even sending naval forces to the region to put pressure on India. The Soviet Union, meanwhile, backed India. Neither superpower directly intervened in the conflict.

India and Pakistan signed the Simla agreement in 1972, which formally ended the war and conveyed the principles that would govern future relations between the two countries. Although the war did not directly involve the issue of Kashmir, the accord nonetheless recognized the Line of Control as the de facto border between India and Pakistan. Both sides agreed to solve future disputes through bilateral negotiations and vowed never to unilaterally alter the Line of Control irrespective of what each side considered its territory. In 1974, the Kashmiri state government reaffirmed its status as part of India. Pakistan again challenged the legitimacy of this action.

Insurgency

In 1989, an armed Muslim insurgency began in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Some insurgents wanted to merge with Pakistan while others supported Kashmiri independence. India alleged that Pakistani intelligence was providing the insurgents with logistical and material support in training camps inside Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. Pakistan denied this claim, stating that it was only providing them diplomatic and moral support. The Islamist orientation of the insurgency grew increasingly radicalized as foreign mujahidden rebels arrived from Afghanistan, where they had fought the Soviets.

In 1996, India and Pakistan participated in talks covering an array of issues, including the status of Kashmir. India and Pakistan could not reach an agreement, though they committed themselves to more negotiations.

India Review 2016 Page 179 of 408 pages India

In 1998, India and Pakistan both tested nuclear weapons. The tests drew widespread condemnation from the international community. That same year, Pakistan tested a long rang missile capable of striking India. The nuclear issue confounded fears that conflict could once against erupt on the subcontinent – with even more devastating consequences.

Kargil War

In 1999, the prime ministers of the two countries signed the Lahore accord, which committed each side to intensifying efforts to solve the Kashmir dispute. That same year, however, the issue of Pakistani support for the insurgency in Indian-controlled Kashmir once again came to the fore. India accused Pakistan of sending troops to support insurgents in Kargil on the Indian side of the Line of Control. India also alleged that these troops and militants had secured peaks that would allow Pakistan to control a strategic highway that links Jammu and Kashmir. This highway is critical to India’s civilian and military infrastructure. India carried out air strikes against the Pakistani-backed forces. Under pressure from the U.S., Pakistan called for insurgent groups to pull back from the Line of Control. Some groups complied, while others refused until the Indian military defeated them. Although Pakistan denied allowing its troops to cross the Line of Control, later evidence suggests a high degree of coordination between the Pakistani military and the insurgents inside Indian territory. Tens of thousands of people on both sides of the Line of Control fled their homes during the fighting.

Later in 1999, an Indian airliner was hijacked en route from Katmandu, Nepal to New Delhi. The hijackers demanded the release of over 40 Kashmiri militants as ransom. India eventually released three of the militants and accused Pakistani intelligence of orchestrating the hijacking.

In 2000, India announced that it would be pulling back its military forces from the Line of Control in an effort to ease regional tensions. In response, Pakistan’s president Musharraf expressed his willingness to engage in talks with India. India, however, rejected his offer because it did not want to legitimize Musharraf’s military government nor did it want to hold talks until Pakistan stopped backing Kashmiri militants. In 2001, however, India invited Pakistan’s president to New Delhi. At the meeting, Pakistan argued that relations between the two countries could not improve until the issue of Kashmir was addressed. India responded that the issue was too difficult to solve at that time and that the two sides would have to address other issues, such as trade, before dealing with Kashmir. The talks failed to yield an agreement.

Although Pakistan’s cooperation in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks brought about more friendly relations between Pakistan in the West, the situation along the Line of Control continued to worsen. In October 2001, militants attacked the Kashmiri assembly in Srinagar, killing 38 people. On December 2001, militants attacked India’s Parliament House in New Delhi, killing 14 people. India accused Pakistan of allowing the terrorist groups responsible for the attacks to operate on Pakistani territory. Pakistan denied the allegations and vowed to respond to an attack by India. Both sides began to amass troops along the border, heightening fears that conflict was imminent.

India Review 2016 Page 180 of 408 pages India

The U.S. put pressure on the two sides to take actions to calm the situation.

In February 2002, Pakistani troops shot down an aircraft carrying a senior Indian military commander near Kargil. In May 2002, an attack on an army camp in Indian-controlled Kashmir killed 30 people. Both sides began to exchange fire across the Line of Control, sparking more international concern.

In June 2002, a regional security summit was held in Kazakhstan as tensions between the two countries continued to rise. India refused to reach an agreement until Pakistan took steps to stop cross-border terrorism. Later that year, both countries agreed to a cease-fire along the Line of Control.

In early 2004, India and Pakistan initiated a composite dialogue on all issues between them, including Kashmir. These were their first formal talks in three years. Since then, some positive developments have occurred. In April 2005, a bus line between the Srinagar and Muzaffarabad has started service. The bus line allowed families divided across the Line of Control to meet for the first time since 1956. Despite this, many Kashmiri families remain frustrated that bureaucratic procedures have allowed only a relatively small number of individuals to cross the border.

President Musharraf shocked many observers in October 2004 when he suggested that the two countries “think outside the box” and even consider an arrangement in which India and Pakistan would jointly govern a demilitarized Kashmir. President Musharraf also stated that he would be wiling to withdraw Pakistan’s demand for a plebiscite.

On October 8, 2005, the region experienced a devastating earthquake. It quickly became clear that restrictions on crossing the Line of Control were hindering the delivery of humanitarian aid. On October 30, 2005, only day after a terrorist attack killed 61 in Delhi, both countries agreed to open five crossing points along the Line of Control to facilitate relief efforts and allow people to visit their families. This was to be the first opening of the border since the conflict began. Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control were required to submit applications before they would be allowed to travel to the other side. Both countries disagreed about the process of exchanging lists of people who would be allowed to cross.

In January 2006, India and Pakistan stated committed themselves to having more talks on Kashmir.

In April 2006, a terrorist attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir left 35 Hindus dead just stays before a meeting between the Indian prime minister and Kashmiri separatists. India alleged that a terrorist group based in Pakistan was behind the attack. In May 2006, India and Pakistan reached a trade agreement that allows trucks to travel from Srinagar and Muzaffarabad across the Line of Control.

A period of relative calm in the contested region of Kashmir came to an end in May 2008. Islamic

India Review 2016 Page 181 of 408 pages India militants in the Samba district to the south of Jammu were reported to have killed two civilians before being faced with security forces. Subsequent clashed resulted in the death of one soldier.

Note: The area of Kashmir has seen much violence over the years due to its contested status in which it is officially under Indian control but claimed by Pakistan. Islamic militants from across the border in Pakistan have repeatedly tried to wrest control from India through violent means and the use of terror tactics. The issue has been the main source of strife between the two nuclear powers, even leading to more than on war in the past.

Current Initiative

The issue of Kashmir is currently being handled on a bilateral basis absent of international mediation. The talks on Kashmir are part of broader negotiations known as the “composite dialogue” that seeks to address a wide range of bilateral issues and eventually normalize relations between the two countries. Under the composite dialogue, all issues are open for discussion. A cease-fire has been in effect along the Line of Control since November 2003. A third round of normalization talks was set to conclude in July 2006. Despite talks on Kashmir, no comprehensive agreement has been reached. In India’s view, progress needs to first be made with confidence- building measures before the political climate on the subcontinent will be ripe enough to address Kashmir. Pakistan, meanwhile, views Kashmir as the main obstacle to progress in other bilateral areas. Terrorist attacks against targets in Indian-administered Kashmir continue to threaten the productivity of negotiations.

Foreign Policy Positions of Key Players

India

As a rising global power, India seeks to prevent the dispute in Kashmir from destabilizing the region. India wants the Line of Control to be formalized as the official international border and rejects the option of Kashmir becoming an independent state. India has also consistently rejected calls for a plebiscite to be held. India believes that by participating in state elections, Kashmiri voters declared their desire to be part of India. India has resisted any efforts to include third party mediators in the negotiations, arguing that the 1972 Simla accord requires that the issue be addressed through bilateral negotiations. India has balked at Pakistan’s calls for the creation of a “roadmap for peace” similar to what has guided the Middle East peace process. India has, however, engaged in negotiations with some moderate elements of the Kashmiri separatist movement. Domestically, the Indian government has sought to remedy the frustrations of Kashmiris by focusing on economic development, promoting cross-border interactions, and granting greater political autonomy. It refuses to withdraw its security forces from Kashmir until

India Review 2016 Page 182 of 408 pages India

Pakistan takes greater steps toward preventing terrorism. In March 2006, India reiterated its unwillingness to redraw the border, though it hoped to improve the political climate in Kashmir and make the border “just lines on a map.”

Pakistan

The Pakistani government believes that Kashmir should have joined with Pakistan because it had a Muslim majority. Indian-controlled Kashmir is the only state in India in which Muslims constitute a majority. Pakistan does not accept the legitimacy of the Maharaja’s accession to India. Pakistan does not want to make the Line of Control the official international border because the Kashmir Valley, which has a Muslim majority, would remain part of India. Instead, Pakistan wants to solve the conflict by holding a plebiscite to let the Kashmiri people decide their own fate, although President Musharraf hinted that he might be willing to put this demand aside in December 2005. Pakistan holds the position that Kashmiris themselves should be allowed to participate in Indo-Pak negotiations. Pakistan is currently against the option of Kashmir becoming an independent state. Pakistan denies providing logistical and material support to Kashmiri insurgents, instead arguing that the Indian military’s presence in Kashmir fuels desperation and alienation. When President Bush signed a nuclear deal with India, Pakistan expressed its hope that the U.S. would put pressure on India to find a solution to the conflict. Pakistan accuses the Indian military of committing human rights abuses in Kashmir.

China

China’s policy toward Kashmir has traditionally favored Pakistan. In the years after independence, Pakistan sought stronger ties with China in order to balance India. In 1957, Pakistan ceded a small part of its territory in Kashmir to China as a goodwill gesture. Pakistan supported China during its 1962 border war with India. China has provided Pakistan with a significant amount of weaponry, including key components of nuclear weapons. However, in recent years, as relations between India and China have improved, China has taken a more neutral stance toward the conflict. China has encouraged both sides to solve their differences peacefully and to exercise restraint. In its view, the only way to solve the conflict is through bilateral negotiation between India and Pakistan. China did not offer Pakistan its support during the Kargil conflict in 1999. Although India still claims Aksai Chin (Chinese-administered Kashmir) as its territory, both sides consider the Line of Mutual Control, which was created after the 1962 Sino-Indian Border War, the de facto international border.

Kashmir Separatist and Independence Movements

Some Kashmiris believe that Kashmir should become seeks independence from both India and Pakistan – a status Kashmir initially had after the British granted independence in 1947. Supporters of Kashmiri independence point to the fact that Kashmir is larger in geography and

India Review 2016 Page 183 of 408 pages India population than many members of the U.N. Others, however, fear that Kashmiri independence could lead to the Balkanization of the subcontinent as other regions seek to break away from India and Pakistan. After the 2005 earthquake disaster, some Kashmiris expressed anger that a lack of cooperation between India and Pakistan was slowing relief efforts. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) is the main umbrella group for Kashmiri separatism. It is currently split between a faction that favors independence and another faction that favors accession to Pakistan. The APHC has held formal talks with the Indian and Pakistani governments, although its claim to represent all Kashmiris is disputed. The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front is a secular, nationalist terrorist group that supports independence and opposes succession to Pakistan. Hindus and Buddhists generally oppose both independence and secession to Pakistan. Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control believe that any negotiations between India and Pakistan on the issue need to include a delegation of Kashmiris who represent a diverse spectrum of viewpoints.

Hizbul-Mujahideen

Hizbul-Mujahideen is an Islamist militant group headquartered in Pakistani-administered Kashmir that is dedicated to Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan (although some members support full independence). The group allegedly has links to Pakistani intelligence and Pakistan’s largest Islamist party, which helped found it to challenge the secular orientation of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front. Hizbul-Mujahideen has been designated as a terrorist group by the European Union (E.U.) and has carried out attacks against Indian civilian and military targets inside Kashmir.

United States

U.S. policy has sought to reduce the risk of war on the subcontinent. The U.S. favors recognizing the Line of Control as the international border between India and Pakistan. While Pakistan remains a key U.S. ally in the Global War on Terror, the U.S. has recently sought to establish a stronger strategic relationship with India. The U.S. has encouraged both countries to continue a dialogue on the issue of Kashmir and has supported small steps like establishing a bus services that operates across the Line of Control. During his March 2006 trip to India, President Bush’s only remarks on the subject of Kashmir encouraged the two countries to negotiate a resolution.

United Kingdom

The U.K. also favors recognizing the Line of Control as the international border.

United Nations

The U.N. has maintained a presence in Kashmir since the beginning of the dispute. In January 1948, the Security Council passed resolution 39, establishing the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and mediate the dispute. Security Council resolution 47 enlarged the membership of UNCIP. Security Council resolution 91 established the United Nations

India Review 2016 Page 184 of 408 pages India

Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to monitor the cease-fire. UNMOGIP claims that it has a mandate to observe the 1972 cease-fire established by the Simla agreement. India disputes this mandate, arguing that UNMOGIP was only set up to monitor the 1949 Karachi agreement. India has restricted the activities of UNMOGIP monitors on the Indian side of the Line of Control. Pakistan embraces UNMOGIP’s mandate and has lodged several complaints to UNMOGIP about alleged Indian violations of the cease-fire. Given the disputed nature of the mandate, the Secretary-General has taken the position that UNMOGIP’s mandate will end when the Security Council terminates it. There are currently 43 military observers, who are supported by 22 international civilian personnel and 45 local civilian staff. Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, South Korea, Sweden, and Uruguay contribute military personnel to UNMOGIP.

Update (since 2006):

In early March, 2008, a blast near the Civil Secretariat – Indian-controlled Kashmir's seat of government and the region's high court -- left close to 20 people injured. Later in the month, a gun battle between security forces and Islamic militants opposed to Indian rule left five people dead and two others injured. The incident ensued following a raid on a house by security forces on the outskirts of the capital city of Srinagar. It was the latest case in an cordon and search effort bt the Indian Army against Islamic militants in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Also in 2008, the decision by the government of Indian-administered Kashmir to transfer land a Hindu shrine organization, the Amarnath Shrine Board, provoked angry and violent protests by the region's Muslim majority. The matter also spurred further acrimony stemming from the Muslim/Hindu divisions in Kashmir -- a flashpoint for conflict between mainly Hindu India and mainly Muslim Pakistan. Perhaps realizing that the matter would cause only greater hostility, State Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said the plans for the forested land would be formally revoked.

That said, the year 2008 marked the lowest number of casualties in Kashmir in 20 years with less than 90 deaths, according to India's Home Ministry. Human rights groups also noted that the human rights situation in Kashmir had improved with only one custodial death occurring and no custodial disappearances.

At the start of 2009, Ahsan Dar -- the founder of terrorism in Kashmir enclave, Hizbul Mujahideen -- was arrested. This arrest was considered a key development in the fight against terrorism in the conflict-ridden territory.

March 2009 saw protests take place in Nowhatta, resulting in the deaths of a few people and the establishment of a curfew. This was followed two months later by mass protests over the rape and murder cases of two young women in Shopian at the hands allegedly of Indian Armed Forces. The protests turned violent and police and paramilitaries were accused of opening fire on

India Review 2016 Page 185 of 408 pages India protestors in Shopian, Baramulla and Srinagar. It was not known how these developments would affect Indo-Pak relations or efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue.

In the background of the Kashmir issue has been a spate of attacks by Pakistani-based terror groups, such as Lashkar e Taiba, which has been linked to a number of terror attacks in the United Kingdom and India. The group has been said that its aspirations in Kashmir are linked with the broader jihadist efforts. But in January 2009, the terror group publicly declared that it would support a peaceful resolution in Kashmir.

Note:

On Sept. 13, 2010, violence erupted in Indian-administered Kashmir. Protestors reportedly gathered to protest the desecration of the Koran in the United States in defiance of curfews. The demonstrations turned violent as a mob set a government building and a Protestant school ablaze, and then attacked a police station, while chanting anti-Indian and anti-American slogans. Police opened fire on the protestors killing at least 18 civilians. As many as 100 others were wounded in the chaos.

The eruption of violence was not sudden as protests have been ongoing for several months, originating in June 2010 when a 17-year-old student died after being hit by a tear gas shell during protests in Srinagar. This manifestation of violence in Muslim-dominated Kashmir appeared to have been sparked by the controversy in the United States about an American pastor's plans to burn the Koran on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in that country.

As news filters through to Kashmiris that the American pastor did not actually go through with his plans to desecrate the Koran, it was possible that the rising tide of anti-American sentiment in Kashmir could subside. However, antipathy towards India, which has jurisdiction over Muslim- dominated Kashmir, was not likely to decrease in the near future. Instead, the fight to wrest control of Kashmir from India to Pakistan may well be revitalized among militants, effectively refocusing the main flashpoint on the Indian subcontinent between Indians and Pakistanis for more than five decades.

Indeed, anti-Indian antagonism was in high gear by September 18, 2010 when protestors defied a curfew and clashed with police, resulting in several deaths. Almost all of the people killed were those engaged in clashes with government forces. In one case, local mourners at a funeral claimed that the government forces opened fire on them, but other reports indicated that some of the mourners were trying to set fire to the home of a pro-India politician. Regardless of the veracity of either side's claims, it was apparent that the Kashmir issue was once again emerging as a key concern on the Indian sub-continent.

India Review 2016 Page 186 of 408 pages India

The Recent Politics of Kashmir (2013) --

January 2013 saw clashes erupt close to Kashmir's "Line of Control." The clashes resulted in the deaths of two Indian soldiers as well as two Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan claimed that there had been "unprovoked" gunfire emanating from Indian troops ahead of the death of one of their soldiers. In response, the Indian army denied taking any provocative actions. India drew attention to the killing of two of their soldiers in a Pakistani border attack, as well as the "barbaric" mutilation of the bodies of the soldiers. For its part, Pakistan denied India's version of the events.

Although both countries initially appeared to be interested in de-escalating the tensions, on Jan. 12, 2013, the Indian military was hinting that it would entertain its options to counter Pakistan's violation of a prevailing ceasefire at the Line of Control. Indian Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne said in an interview with the media that although the two countries had mechanisms like the Line of Control and the 2003 ceasefire agreement in place, "violations with impunity" were "unacceptable." He continued, "We are watching the situation carefully, if the violations continue, perhaps we may have to think of some other options for compliance."

Taking an even stronger tone, the Indian army chief, General Bikram Singh, accused Pakistan of being involved in the planning of the attacks that left two Indian soldiers dead. He characterized the bloodshed was "pre-meditated, pre-planned activity" and called on Indian troops to be "aggressive and offensive in the face of provocation and fire" from Pakistan. Moreover, on Jan. 15, 2013, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed a warning to Pakistan on the matter of Kashmir, saying it "cannot be business as usual" with Pakistan after the deaths of two Indian soldiers. He made particular mention of the fact that one soldier was beheaded -- an apparent reference to the mutilation of the bodies of the soldiers noted above. In addition to the Indian army chief's warning that "aggressive" consequences would be in the offing, Indian authorities also halted a planned "visa on arrival" program for some Pakistani citizens.

In the second week of February 2013, violent protests broke out in the Indian-controlled Kashmir, with more than 35 people -- including 23 policemen -- injured as a result. The eruption of violence appeared to be in response to the execution of Mohammed Afzal Guru, who was convicted by Indian authorities for his involvement in the 201 terrorist attack on the Indian House of Parliament. That attack was linked to two Pakistan-based terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, with control over contested Kashmir at the center of their grievances. Guru was sentenced to death in 2004 by the Indian Supreme Court for his role in that attack that audacious attack on the Indian parliament. The death sentence was set to be carried out in 2006, however, it was delayed following a mercy petition by Guru's wife. Now, in 2013, the execution had taken place, evidently sparking the anger of some in the disputed territory of Kashmir.

Special Note on Kashmir (2014) --

India Review 2016 Page 187 of 408 pages India

In the first part of October 2014, intense fighting broke out between Pakistani and Indian forces in the Indian-controlled region of Kashmir in the Himalayas. The clashes began at the start of October 2014 and lasted more than a week, with nine Pakistani and eight Indian civilians being killed in the crossfire of violence between the two sides. At least 18,000 Indian nationals fled the area of Jammu to escape the violence, and claimed they were enduring harsh conditions at relief camps as they waited for the fighting to end.

While Kashmir is legally under Indian jurisdiction, it is home to a mostly Muslim population and claimed by Pakistan. For years, it has been the source of an intractable flashpoint between the two countries, even leading to war at times. Sporadic exchanges of gun fire and even clashes erupt despite a ceasefire that has remained mostly in tact since 2003; however, heavy fighting that leads to the deaths of civilians, of the type experienced in October 2014 can be regarded as a relative rarity.

India blamed Pakistan for the fighting in October 2014, saying that its own forces had retaliated to machine gun fire and mortar attacks on various positions along the border. Throughout, India has placed the responsibility for eruptions of fighting along the border on Pakistani troops, saying that they have offered cover to separatists, militants, and extremists as they violated the border and entered India's territory -- potentially with an eye on carrying out terrorist attacks in India. Indeed, there have been no shortage of terror attacks by Pakistani Islamic terrorists on India over the issue of Kashmir. One of the most significant was the storming of the Indian parliament in 2001 by Pakistani Islamic extremists from Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad -- both known Pakistani terrorist groups with aspirations in Kashmir. For its part, Pakistan typically downplays its role as a center and venue for Islamic terrorists (facts to the contrary notwithstanding) and normally accuses India of inflating its claims that Pakistanis are violating the border and plotting attacks on Indian territory.

Returning to the volatile conditions in October 2014 in Kashmir, Indian authorities expressed concern over the eruption of violence and urged a resolution. In an interview with the media, Arup Raha, the Air Chief Marshall of the Indian Air Force said: "We are all concerned and want an early solution to it [the clashes]." He continued, "We don't want to let the issue become serious."

In the background of these developments in Kashmir were the political dynamics in the respective capitals of New Delhi and Islamabad.

In the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was dealing with oppostion protests and an ineffective policy of dealing with Islamist terrorists, such as the Taliban. A weakened Sharif became dependent on the Pakistani military to hold onto power, and thus has had to concede his own predilections in favor of the military's stance towards India. That stance was not particularly hospitable to the notion of reconciliation with India.

India Review 2016 Page 188 of 408 pages India

Meanwhile, in the Indian capital of New Delhi, newly-elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose history of hardline positions against Muslims earned him both praise and condemnations, was riding high in a wave of popular support. As a known Hindu nationalist, he would likely be allowed a great deal of latitude in dealing with Pakistani aggression. Modi's tougher stances with Pakistan were illustrated by his decisions to cancel talks with Pakistan and not meet with Nawaz during meetings of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2014.

Editor's Note on Kashmir

Kashmir has been a flashpoint for several decades. A fiercely disputed territory, Kashmir is legally administered by India, but claimed by Pakistan. The dispute has resulted in conflicted conditions on the Indian sub-continent, which have frequently resulted in armed conflict. Although a final status agreement has yet to be reached, the "Line of Control" that separates Indian-controlled Kashmir from Pakistani territory serves as the de facto international border between the two countries. The geopolitical importance of the dispute has been confounded by both sides’ acquisition of nuclear weapons in 1998. In recent years, India has accused Pakistan of backing militants that have attacked civilian and military targets inside Indian-controlled Kashmir. Indeed, groups such as Lashkar e Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen have carried out terrorist attacks with an eye on ultimately taking control of Kashmir. The group has been said that its aspirations in Kashmir are linked with the broader jihadist efforts. Despite not being able to comprehensively resolve the conflict, India and Pakistan have made some progress in recent years in agreeing to establish transportation links such as a bus service across the "Line of Control," and more recently, the easing of visa restrictions. But the clashes in early 2013, particularly punctuated by the brutal killings of two Indian soldiers, resulted in India's decision to halt plans for a "visa on demand" program. The eruption of violence along the border in 2014 was not expected to improve the situation. Indeed, the political conditions in the respective capitals of New Delhi and Islamabad were not conducive to reconciliation. Instead, the leadership in India and Pakistan were more likely to stake out hard line -- and nationalistic -- positions, with neither side likely willing to cede ground.

Sources: BBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, International Crisis Group, MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base, Center for Strategic and International Studies, United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan.

India Review 2016 Page 189 of 408 pages India

India Review 2016 Page 190 of 408 pages India

Chapter 3 Economic Overview

India Review 2016 Page 191 of 408 pages India

Economic Overview

Overview

India is the world's second most populous country and one of the fastest growing economies. While India has a diverse economy, the agricultural sector, including forestry and fishing, still accounts for around 17 percent of GDP and employs about 60 percent of the labor force. The services sector is now the most dynamic sector, accounting for over 50 percent of GDP, with telecommunications and information technology registering particularly rapid growth. India's large, skilled workforce makes it a popular choice for international companies seeking to outsource work, and there also has been a manufacturing boom in recent years driven by the efficient use of technology.

In recent years, sound macroeconomic policies and steady structural reforms have resulted in India’s impressive economic performance and its success in reducing poverty. While economic growth slowed as a result of the global crisis, India’s economy was one of the first in the world to recover supported by sound policies and the government’s decisive actions, including prompt fiscal and monetary easing. Capital inflows are rising, and financial markets have regained most of their lost ground. Moreover, India was not at the center of the global crisis, and growth is well balanced and mainly reliant on domestic drivers. In 2010, the Indian economy strongly rebounded from the global financial crisis - in large part because of strong domestic demand. As an indicator of growth, merchandise exports, which make up about 15 percent of GDP, returned in 2010 to pre-financial crisis levels. Following a return of normal rainfall patterns, the agricultural sector also enjoyed a sharp rebound. As fiscal stimulus continues to be withdrawn, a pick-up in consumption spending, helped by the recovery in farm incomes, and robust business investment were expected to be the mainstays of growth. In a controversial move, the Indian government in May 2011 said it would end a tax break for Indian exporters. This drew the ire from manufacturers, especially automakers. Overall, India's economic growth in 2011 slowed because of persistently high inflation and interest rates and little progress on economic reforms largely due to corruption scandals that hindered legislative work. High international crude prices have exacerbated the government's fuel subsidy expenditures contributing to a higher fiscal deficit, and a worsening current account deficit. As such, the rupee depreciated the most among major Asian currencies in 2011.

By 2012, it was clear that the government’s poor policy choices in the midst of a deteriorating external environment had only weakened the investment climate. India’s growth slumped to its lowest in nine years in the first quarter of 2012 due to a slowdown in manufacturing. Meanwhile, inflation inched up in May 2012 after showing signs of declining in April and the rupee slid to a

India Review 2016 Page 192 of 408 pages India record low versus the dollar. In June 2012, the central bank defied widespread calls to cut interest rates and boost growth, instead choosing to leave rates on hold, and put the onus on the government to pull the economy out of its slump. Also in June 2012, India's biggest commercial vehicle maker, Tata Motors, said it would halt production at one of its factories in yet another sign of slowing growth. In late 2012, the Indian government announced additional reforms and deficit reduction measures in an effort to reverse India's slowdown, including allowing higher levels of foreign participation in direct investment in the economy.

By early 2013, it was clear that although India’s economic growth remained one of the highest in the world, it had slowed markedly and inflation remained elevated. The slowdown was mainly due to structural and supply-side factors, with cyclical and global factors also contributing. The current account deficit widened in 2011-12, causing the rupee to depreciate sharply before stabilizing. The financial positions of banks and corporates, both strong before 2009, had deteriorated. Inflation was forecasted to remain above the Reserve Bank of India’s comfort zone given that supply constraints were likely to ease only gradually.

In October 2013, India’s government unveiled plans to launch trading of government bond futures by year’s end as part of its continued efforts to deepen its financial markets. India has active derivatives markets in currencies and equities but has struggled to develop liquidity in debt derivatives, depriving banks and other financial firms of a hedging opportunity. Meanwhile, India’s Housing Development Finance Corp Ltd (HDFC) recorded a 10 percent increase in net profit for the July-September quarter. The country’s top mortgage lender was counting on higher demand in smaller cities to give the slowing economy a boost despite rising inflation and high interest rates. “Our lending is more to middle-income people, more in the outskirts of big cities, or in tier 2 and tier 3 cities where the growth is still reasonably good,” HDFC's chief executive officer, Keki Mistry, told Reuters. Overall, however, the country’s economy was still growing at its slowest pace in a decade.

Growth in 2013 fell to a decade low, as India's economic leaders struggled to improve the country's wide fiscal and current account deficits. Rising macroeconomic imbalances in India and improving economic conditions in Western countries led investors to shift capital away from India, prompting a sharp depreciation of the rupee. However, investors' perceptions of India improved in early 2014, due to a reduction of the current account deficit and expectations of post-election economic reform resulting in a surge of inbound capital flows and stabilization of the rupee, according to the CIA World Factbook.

In late August 2014, the Indian government pledged to tighten up risk management at the country's dominant state banks. Bad loans had surged to 4.1 percent of gross advances in March 2014 compared to March 2011, the Reserve Bank of India said in its annual report. Finance Secretary Arvind Mayaram also said in late August 2014 that growth was on course to recover to about 5.8 percent in the year to March 2015, up from 2013 - the second year of growth below 5 percent. Industrial production was robust, infrastructure output growth was at a nine-month high and

India Review 2016 Page 193 of 408 pages India manufacturing activity was growing at its fastest rate in 17 months. Car sales were also on the rise.

Growth in 2014 fell to another decade low, as India's economic leaders struggled to improve the country's wide fiscal and current account deficits. Rising macroeconomic imbalances in India, and improving economic conditions in Western countries, led investors to shift capital away from India, prompting a sharp depreciation of the rupee. However, investors' perceptions of India improved in early 2014, due to a reduction of the current account deficit and expectations of post-election economic reform, resulting in a surge of inbound capital flows and stabilization of the rupee.

In September 2015, Reserve Bank of India cut its policy interest rate to a four-and-a-half low of 6.75 percent. RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan said one of the most important factors behind the country’s bigger-than-expected 50 basis points interest rate cut was slowing global economic growth, according to Reuters.

Meanwhile, in October 2015, the IMF said that prospects for India remained favorable despite a slowdown in the global economy, but that the government should accelerate structural reforms and relax supply constraints in the energy, mining, and power sectors. It also said India should reform taxes and trim subsidies to narrow its budget deficit. The IMF also lowered India’s growth forecast to 7.3 percent for the year, from its earlier estimate of 7.5 percent.

“India is still a bright spot but that's partly because the other emerging markets are not so bright,” Thomas Richardson, the IMF's resident representative in India, told Reuters as the Fund released its latest World Economic Outlook.

Economic Performance

India's economic performance has been impressive in recent years supported by growing openness and rising consumer and investor confidence, with robust real GDP growth from 2005 to 2007. Growth slowed in 2008 and stayed almost unchanged in 2009, as the economy was adversely affected by the global economic crisis. But real GDP growth rebounded strongly in 2010.

According to CountryWatch estimated calculations for 2014:

Real GDP growth rate was: 6.2 percent The fiscal deficit/surplus as percent of GDP (%) was: -3.6 percent Inflation was measured at: 9.1 percent

Updated in 2015

*Please note that the figures in our Economic Performance section are estimates or forecasts based on IMF-based data that are formulated using CountryWatch models of analysis.

India Review 2016 Page 194 of 408 pages India

Supplementary Sources: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Monetary Fund and Reuters

Nominal GDP and Components

Nominal GDP and Components

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Nominal GDP 88,320.12 99,885.40 113,450.56 126,537.62 141,122.61 (LCU billions)

Nominal GDP 13.462 13.095 13.581 11.535 11.526 Growth Rate (%)

Consumption 49,775.80 59,385.51 67,136.93 74,965.88 86,193.82 (LCU billions)

Government Expenditure (LCU 9,872.20 10,931.30 12,774.67 14,862.55 17,088.58 billions)

Gross Capital Formation (LCU 34,388.35 36,255.80 36,895.35 39,709.27 43,342.99 billions)

Exports of Goods & Services (LCU 21,439.31 24,397.07 28,547.13 29,854.54 32,599.19 billions)

Imports of Goods & Services (LCU 27,155.54 31,084.28 31,903.52 32,854.62 38,101.96

India Review 2016 Page 195 of 408 pages India

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

billions)

India Review 2016 Page 196 of 408 pages India

Population and GDP Per Capita

Population and GDP Per Capita

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Population, total 1,217.44 1,243.00 1,259.35 1,275.92 1,292.71 (million)

Population growth 1.872 2.100 1.316 1.316 1.316 (%)

Nominal GDP per 72,545.88 80,358.32 90,086.38 99,173.56 109,168.29 Capita (LCU 1000s)

India Review 2016 Page 197 of 408 pages India

Real GDP and Inflation

Real GDP and Inflation

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Real Gross Domestic Product 88,320.12 92,807.87 99,210.83 107,395.46 114,165.78 (LCU billions 2005 base)

Real GDP Growth 6.638 5.081 6.899 8.250 6.304 Rate (%)

GDP Deflator 100.000 107.626 114.353 117.824 123.612 (2005=100.0)

Inflation, GDP 6.399 7.626 6.250 3.035 4.912 Deflator (%)

India Review 2016 Page 198 of 408 pages India

Government Spending and Taxation

Government Spending and Taxation

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Government Fiscal Budget 24,026.55 27,131.90 31,098.27 33,396.98 38,315.27 (billions)

Fiscal Budget Growth Rate 13.381 12.925 14.619 7.392 14.727 (percentage)

National Tax Rate Net of 19.082 19.726 19.775 19.458 19.947 Transfers (%)

Government Revenues Net 16,853.63 19,703.36 22,434.95 24,621.83 28,150.27 of Transfers (LCU billions)

Government Surplus(-) -7172.9240 -7428.5460 -8663.3210 -8775.1450 -10165.0060 Deficit(+) (LCU billions)

Government Surplus(+) -8.1215 -7.4371 -7.6362 -6.9348 -7.2030 Deficit(-) (%GDP)

India Review 2016 Page 199 of 408 pages India

Money Supply, Interest Rates and Unemployment

Money Supply, Interest Rates and Unemployment

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Money and Quasi- Money (M2) (LCU 68,874.87 76,482.58 87,826.11 97,124.76 108,319.55 billions)

Money Supply 16.138 11.046 14.832 10.588 11.526 Growth Rate (%)

Lending Interest 10.167 10.604 10.292 10.250 8.904 Rate (%)

Unemployment Rate 2.250 2.500 4.500 4.900 4.472 (%)

India Review 2016 Page 200 of 408 pages India

Foreign Trade and the Exchange Rate

Foreign Trade and the Exchange Rate

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Official Exchange Rate 47.921 54.409 60.502 61.689 64.659 (LCU/$US)

Trade Balance NIPA -119.2833 -122.9061 -55.4758 -48.6326 -85.1050 ($US billions)

Trade Balance % of -6.4722 -6.6949 -2.9585 -2.3709 -3.8993 GDP

Total Foreign Exchange 298.739 300.426 298.092 325.081 395.069 Reserves ($US billions)

India Review 2016 Page 201 of 408 pages India

Data in US Dollars

Data in US Dollars

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Nominal GDP ($US billions) 1,843.02 1,835.82 1,875.16 2,051.23 2,182.58

Exports ($US billions) 447.384 448.400 471.839 483.955 504.173

Imports ($US billions) 566.668 571.306 527.314 532.587 589.278

India Review 2016 Page 202 of 408 pages India

Energy Consumption and Production Standard Units

Energy Consumption and Production Standard Units

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Petroleum Consumption 3,460.26 3,617.08 3,659.07 3,838.28 4,003.62 (TBPD)

Petroleum Production 1,007.08 1,009.86 1,012.54 988.517 1,006.79 (TBPD)

Petroleum Net Exports -2453.1812 -2607.2143 -2646.5320 -2849.7639 -2996.8217 (TBPD)

Natural Gas Consumption 2,260.51 2,080.05 1,822.25 1,786.94 1,997.57 (bcf)

Natural Gas Production 1,683.34 1,452.63 1,220.87 1,103.66 1,141.97 (bcf)

Natural Gas Net Exports -577.1727 -627.4229 -601.3834 -683.2776 -855.6000 (bcf)

Coal Consumption 720,346.14 744,518.73 798,664.56 870,709.51 906,838.53 (1000s st)

Coal Production 621,671.64 612,015.78 616,550.47 689,774.40 682,517.81

India Review 2016 Page 203 of 408 pages India

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

(1000s st)

Coal Net Exports -98674.5036 -132502.9442 -182114.0893 -180935.1125 -224320.7170 (1000s st)

Nuclear Production 28.948 29.665 29.816 31.049 31.783 (bil kwh)

Hydroelectric Production 142.146 124.569 130.539 129.489 125.525 (bil kwh)

Renewables Production 30.827 35.378 40.305 44.930 49.423 (bil kwh)

India Review 2016 Page 204 of 408 pages India

Energy Consumption and Production QUADS

Energy Consumption and Production QUADS

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Petroleum Consumption (Quads) 7.389 7.723 7.813 8.196 8.549

Petroleum Production (Quads) 2.150 2.171 2.169 2.159 1.718

Petroleum Net Exports (Quads) -5.2384 -5.5524 -5.6440 -6.0367 -6.8305

Natural Gas Consumption 2.306 2.122 1.859 1.823 2.038 (Quads)

Natural Gas Production (Quads) 1.715 1.477 1.243 1.142 0.9970

Natural Gas Net Exports (Quads) -0.5904 -0.6448 -0.6160 -0.6808 -1.0406

Coal Consumption (Quads) 14.407 14.890 15.973 17.414 18.137

Coal Production (Quads) 12.675 12.993 12.963 13.795 12.308

Coal Net Exports (Quads) -1.7314 -1.8975 -3.0100 -3.6187 -5.8288

Nuclear Production (Quads) 0.2895 0.2966 0.2982 0.3105 0.3178

Hydroelectric Production (Quads) 1.421 1.246 1.305 1.295 1.255

Renewables Production (Quads) 0.3083 0.3538 0.4030 0.4493 0.4942

India Review 2016 Page 205 of 408 pages India

World Energy Price Summary

World Energy Price Summary

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Petroleum-WTI ($/bbl) 95.054 94.159 97.943 93.112 48.709

Natural Gas-Henry Hub ($/mmbtu) 3.999 2.752 3.729 4.369 2.614

Coal Thermal-Australian ($/mt) 121.448 96.364 84.562 70.130 57.511

India Review 2016 Page 206 of 408 pages India

CO2 Emissions

CO2 Emissions

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Petroleum Based (mm mt C) 165.067 172.548 174.551 183.100 190.987

Natural Gas Based (mm mt C) 36.675 33.747 29.564 28.992 32.409

Coal Based (mm mt C) 412.830 426.684 457.715 499.004 519.709

Total CO2 Emissions (mm mt 614.572 632.978 661.830 711.095 743.105 C)

India Review 2016 Page 207 of 408 pages India

Agriculture Consumption and Production

Agriculture Consumption and Production

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Corn Total Consumption 17,820.16 17,990.73 18,551.90 17,629.42 17,611.19 (1000 metric tons)

Corn Production 21,719.67 22,192.30 23,195.11 24,032.10 22,398.07 (1000 metric tons)

Corn Net Exports 3,899.51 4,201.57 4,643.21 6,402.67 4,786.88 (1000 metric tons)

Soybeans Total Consumption 12,183.56 14,620.59 11,810.14 10,390.14 10,076.61 (1000 metric tons)

Soybeans Production 12,230.01 14,639.41 11,875.55 10,357.68 9,229.77 (1000 metric tons)

Soybeans Net Exports 46.450 18.823 65.404 -32.4636 -846.8417 (1000 metric tons)

India Review 2016 Page 208 of 408 pages India

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Rice Total Consumption 157,861.31 157,548.83 158,958.69 157,018.59 152,941.74 (1000 metric tons)

Rice Production 158,006.48 157,797.43 159,130.20 157,138.21 150,640.78 (1000 metric tons)

Rice Net Exports 145.171 248.601 171.510 119.613 -2300.9600 (1000 metric tons)

Coffee Total Consumption 121,904.00 158,408.00 153,380.00 161,075.00 164,410.31 (metric tons)

Coffee Production 292,214.21 303,555.29 311,602.94 325,102.95 307,928.08 (metric tons)

Coffee Net Exports 170,310.21 145,147.29 158,222.94 164,027.95 143,517.76 (metric tons)

Cocoa Beans Total 34,185.00 39,392.00 26,759.00 30,550.11 32,215.78 Consumption (metric tons)

Cocoa Beans Production 14,559.90 13,493.97 13,791.29 13,594.19 13,773.83 (metric tons)

Cocoa Beans Net Exports -19625.1049 -25898.0288 -12967.7122 -16955.9204 -18441.9577

India Review 2016 Page 209 of 408 pages India

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

(metric tons)

Wheat Total Consumption 86,374.12 90,296.60 87,018.01 87,983.99 80,109.82 (1000 metric tons)

Wheat Production 86,681.01 95,382.26 93,363.54 94,794.54 82,675.69 (1000 metric tons)

Wheat Net Exports 306.889 5,085.66 6,345.53 6,810.55 2,565.88 (1000 metric tons)

India Review 2016 Page 210 of 408 pages India

World Agriculture Pricing Summary

World Agriculture Pricing Summary

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Corn Pricing Summary 291.684 298.417 259.389 192.881 169.750 ($/metric ton)

Soybeans Pricing Summary 540.667 591.417 538.417 491.771 390.417 ($/metric ton)

Rice Pricing Summary ($/metric 458.558 525.071 473.989 425.148 386.033 ton)

Coffee Pricing Summary 5.976 4.111 3.076 4.424 3.526 ($/kilogram)

Cocoa Beans Pricing Summary 2.980 2.392 2.439 3.062 3.135 ($/kilogram)

Wheat Pricing Summary 316.264 313.242 312.248 284.895 203.177 ($/metric ton)

India Review 2016 Page 211 of 408 pages India

Metals Consumption and Production

Metals Consumption and Production

2011 2012 2013 2014

Copper Consumption 452,695.34 468,526.46 389,942.14 280,271.83 265,467.94 (1000 mt)

Copper Production 667,814.83 693,399.70 618,577.38 648,405.47 560,294.35 (1000 mt)

Copper Net Exports 215,119.49 224,873.24 228,635.24 368,133.64 294,826.41 (1000 mt)

Zinc Consumption 560,750.95 587,662.98 625,176.31 737,020.62 723,587.10 (1000 mt)

Zinc Production 783,913.39 704,295.98 755,818.03 761,777.14 739,699.07 (1000 mt)

Zinc Exports 223,162.44 116,633.00 130,641.72 24,756.52 (1000 mt)

Lead Consumption 535,211.59 608,421.95 568,081.67 646,618.65 593,326.42 (1000 mt)

Lead Production 415,771.79 455,662.66 468,408.28 527,841.21 515,695.15 (1000 mt)

India Review 2016 Page 212 of 408 pages India

2011 2012 2013 2014

Lead Exports -119439.8006 -152759.2909 -99673.3919 -118777.4386 -77631.2721 (1000 mt)

Tin Consumption 6,610.66 7,849.52 6,520.35 7,286.24 (1000 mt)

Tin Production 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (1000 mt)

Tin Exports -6610.6580 -7849.5240 -6520.3540 -7286.2419 -7334.3621 (1000 mt)

Nickel Consumption 28,081.83 25,755.83 25,680.21 24,171.86 (1000 mt)

Nickel Production 106.176 112.925 123.545 133.940 (1000 mt)

Nickel Exports -27975.6574 -25642.9069 -25556.6656 -24037.9228 -20936.3425 (1000 mt)

Gold Consumption 970,571.18 963,135.39 790,986.86 911,085.41 876,455.67 (kg)

Gold Production 56,722.86 58,204.78 59,452.07 63,201.08 (kg)

Gold Exports -913848.3211 -904930.6061 -731534.7868 -847884.3242 -815476.1126 (kg)

India Review 2016 Page 213 of 408 pages India

2011 2012 2013 2014

Silver Consumption 4,868,657.00 2,329,118.00 6,382,971.00 4,510,591.14 4,053,376.30 (mt)

Silver Production 315,849.20 382,363.13 552,123.62 702,375.98 657,945.45 (mt)

Silver -4552807.8026 -1946754.8686 -5830847.3827 -3808215.1616 -3395430.8516 Exports (mt)

India Review 2016 Page 214 of 408 pages India

World Metals Pricing Summary

World Metals Pricing Summary

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Copper ($/mt) 8,828.19 7,962.35 7,332.10 6,863.40 5,510.46

Zinc ($/mt) 2,193.90 1,950.41 1,910.26 2,160.97 1,931.68

Tin ($/mt) 26,053.68 21,125.99 22,282.80 21,898.87 16,066.63

Lead ($/mt) 2,400.81 2,064.64 2,139.79 2,095.46 1,787.82

Nickel ($/mt) 22,910.36 17,547.55 15,031.80 16,893.38 11,862.64

Gold ($/oz) 1,569.21 1,669.52 1,411.46 1,265.58 1,160.66

Silver ($/oz) 35.224 31.137 23.850 19.071 15.721

India Review 2016 Page 215 of 408 pages India

Economic Performance Index

Economic Performance Index

The Economic Performance rankings are calculated by CountryWatch's editorial team, and are based on criteria including sustained economic growth, monetary stability, current account deficits, budget surplus, unemployment and structural imbalances. Scores are assessed from 0 to 100 using this aforementioned criteria as well as CountryWatch's proprietary economic research data and models.

Econ.GNP Bank Monetary/ growth or stability Currency Government Empl./ decline/ risk stability Finances Unempl. forecast

0 - 100 0 - 100 0 - 100 0 - 100 %

North Americas

Canada 92 69 35 38 3.14%

United States 94 76 4 29 3.01%

Western Europe

Austria 90 27 30 63 1.33%

Belgium 88 27 19 23 1.15%

Cyprus 81 91 16 80 -0.69%

Denmark 97 70 45 78 1.20%

Finland 89 27 41 33 1.25%

India Review 2016 Page 216 of 408 pages India

France 87 27 18 27 1.52%

Germany 86 27 22 21 1.25%

Greece 79 27 5 24 -2.00%

Iceland 90 17 2 34 -3.04%

Italy 85 27 37 24 0.84%

Ireland 92 27 11 10 -1.55%

Luxembourg 99 27 28 66 2.08%

Malta 77 27 41 51 0.54%

Netherlands 91 27 26 74 1.30%

Norway 98 44 10 76 1.08%

Portugal 77 27 13 20 0.29%

Spain 83 27 9 3 -0.41%

Sweden 94 72 54 32 1.23%

Switzerland 97 86 55 77 1.53%

United Kingdom 85 12 9 37 1.34%

Central and Eastern Europe

Albania 44 60 33 6 2.30%

Armenia 45 59 49 30 1.80%

India Review 2016 Page 217 of 408 pages India

Azerbaijan 56 4 84 99 2.68%

Belarus 59 21 83 98 2.41%

Bosnia and Herzegovina 34 68 69 N/A 0.50%

Bulgaria 58 75 88 49 0.20%

Croatia 69 68 94 9 0.18%

Czech Republic 80 89 29 70 1.67%

Estonia 72 90 66 92 0.80%

Georgia 36 60 53 56 2.00%

Hungary 70 66 26 54 -0.16%

Latvia 67 100 65 44 -3.97%

Lithuania 65 91 87 79 -1.65%

Macedonia (FYR) 53 69 56 2 2.03%

Moldova 23 36 81 67 2.50%

Poland 74 74 38 12 2.72%

Romania 62 56 70 62 0.75%

Russia 73 18 90 8 4.00%

Serbia 48 49 52 5 1.97%

India Review 2016 Page 218 of 408 pages India

Montenegro 39 27 73 1 -1.70%

Slovak Republic 80 62 30 14 4.06%

Slovenia 81 27 36 65 1.12%

Ukraine 41 11 57 N/A 3.68%

Africa

Algeria 57 18 96 7 4.55%

Angola 49 1 97 N/A 7.05%

Benin 19 91 20 N/A 3.22%

Botswana 68 58 76 N/A 6.33%

Burkina Faso 16 91 13 N/A 4.41%

Burundi 2 91 6 N/A 3.85%

Cameroon 26 91 91 N/A 2.58%

Cape Verde 52 87 4 N/A 4.96%

Central African Republic 9 91 32 N/A 3.18%

Chad 22 91 89 N/A 4.42%

Congo 52 87 87 N/A 12.13%

Côte d’Ivoire 25 91 82 28 2.98%

Dem. Republic

India Review 2016 Page 219 of 408 pages India

Congo 4 91 47 N/A 5.44%

Djibouti 31 76 50 N/A 4.47%

Egypt 37 20 24 69 5.01%

Equatorial Guinea 82 91 85 N/A 0.94%

Eritrea 1 3 1 18 1.81%

Ethiopia 6 45 8 N/A 6.96%

Gabon 64 91 96 N/A 5.36%

Gambia 8 48 86 N/A 4.82%

Ghana 9 11 69 N/A 4.50%

Guinea 10 7 91 N/A 3.03%

Guinea-Bissau 5 91 46 N/A 3.47%

Kenya 20 41 59 N/A 4.11%

Lesotho 13 40 12 N/A 2.98%

Liberia 12 73 74 N/A 5.92%

Libya 73 2 94 N/A 5.22%

Madagascar 4 22 24 N/A -1.02%

Malawi 7 25 55 N/A 5.96%

Mali 20 91 82 N/A 5.12%

India Review 2016 Page 220 of 408 pages India

Mauritania 15 13 93 N/A 4.58%

Mauritius 65 52 56 55 4.10%

Morocco 37 72 48 26 3.23%

Mozambique 12 23 71 N/A 6.45%

Namibia 40 39 62 N/A 1.70%

Niger 10 91 21 N/A 4.41%

Nigeria 30 6 61 N/A 6.98%

Rwanda 21 40 68 N/A 5.39%

Sao Tome & Principe 1 61 100 N/A 3.40%

Senegal 24 91 63 N/A 3.44%

Seychelles 60 67 97 N/A 4.01%

Sierra Leone 5 10 39 N/A 4.77%

Somalia 2 38 59 N/A 3.19%

South Africa 61 37 70 N/A 2.59%

Sudan 16 5 73 N/A 5.52%

Swaziland 32 44 79 N/A 1.09%

Tanzania 15 45 32 N/A 6.17%

Togo 8 91 92 N/A 2.56%

India Review 2016 Page 221 of 408 pages India

Tunisia 50 61 44 39 4.00%

Uganda 11 17 54 N/A 5.59%

Zambia 29 20 49 N/A 5.84%

Zimbabwe 0 8 16 N/A 2.24%

South and Central America

Argentina 66 3 80 36 3.50%

Belize 47 76 80 N/A 1.00%

Bolivia 32 51 61 81 3.99%

Brazil 71 47 78 11 5.50%

Chile 78 25 92 73 4.72%

Columbia 47 52 34 47 2.25%

Costa Rica 60 42 39 57 3.45%

Ecuador 43 76 75 64 2.51%

El Salvador 35 76 67 N/A 1.04%

Guatemala 46 59 58 N/A 2.52%

Honduras 27 47 58 N/A 2.00%

Mexico 69 42 52 61 4.07%

Nicaragua 23 49 42 N/A 1.75%

India Review 2016 Page 222 of 408 pages India

Panama 66 76 72 45 5.00%

Paraguay 35 46 66 16 5.27%

Peru 59 66 75 22 6.33%

Suriname 58 26 81 59 4.02%

Uruguay 70 26 27 N/A 5.71%

Venezuela 55 1 28 13 -2.63%

Caribbean

Antigua & Barbuda 72 76 15 N/A -2.01%

Bahamas 74 76 45 87 -0.50%

Barbados 67 76 33 15 -0.50%

Bermuda N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cuba 45 76 18 95 0.25%

Dominica 53 76 65 N/A 1.40%

Dominican Republic 54 39 43 4 3.50%

Grenada 63 76 48 N/A 0.80%

Guyana 28 56 17 N/A 4.36%

Haiti 11 27 89 N/A -8.50%

Jamaica 42 9 85 19 -0.28%

India Review 2016 Page 223 of 408 pages India

St Lucia 55 76 67 N/A 1.14%

St Vincent & Grenadines 49 76 95 N/A 0.50%

Trinidad & Tobago 82 37 77 72 2.13%

Middle East

Bahrain 84 76 62 91 3.48%

Iran 51 19 40 58 3.01%

Iraq 48 9 8 N/A 7.27%

Israel 87 62 12 48 3.20%

Jordan 41 51 3 N/A 4.10%

Kuwait 96 4 99 N/A 3.10%

Lebanon 63 54 2 N/A 6.00%

Oman 76 16 88 N/A 4.71%

Qatar 99 16 83 N/A 18.54%

Saudi Arabia 76 8 98 N/A 3.70%

Syria 61 24 40 N/A 5.00%

Turkey 75 23 27 60 5.20%

United Arab Emirates 96 24 98 94 1.29%

India Review 2016 Page 224 of 408 pages India

Yemen 28 2 78 N/A 7.78%

Asia

Afghanistan 17 70 74 N/A 8.64%

Bangladesh 13 43 25 N/A 5.38%

Bhutan 24 55 5 N/A 6.85%

Brunei 78 19 99 75 0.48%

Cambodia 18 67 42 N/A 4.77%

China 54 90 19 68 11.03%

Hong Kong 89 76 14 82 5.02%

India 31 38 34 35 8.78%

Indonesia 42 46 37 31 6.00%

Japan 88 89 6 71 1.90%

Kazakhstan 62 13 76 42 2.40%

Korea North 18 65 23 N/A 1.50%

Korea South 83 63 22 85 4.44%

Kyrgyz Republic 24 15 84 88 4.61%

Laos 17 54 7 N/A 7.22%

Macao 91 76 14 82 3.00%

India Review 2016 Page 225 of 408 pages India

Malaysia 68 65 44 90 4.72%

Maldives 44 55 17 N/A 3.45%

Mongolia 33 5 77 93 7.22%

Myanmar 3 41 72 N/A 5.26%

Nepal 3 14 25 N/A 2.97%

Pakistan 19 15 31 41 3.00%

Papua New Guinea 75 50 11 N/A 7.96%

Philippines 30 48 53 43 3.63%

Singapore 93 75 63 40 5.68%

Sri Lanka 38 22 10 N/A 5.50%

Taiwan 84 88 35 89 6.50%

Tajikistan 6 6 60 97 4.00%

Thailand 56 64 90 96 5.46%

Turkmenistan 51 53 68 N/A 12.00%

Uzbekistan 40 10 60 100 8.00%

Vietnam 25 12 20 N/A 6.04%

Pacific

Australia 96 63 31 46 2.96%

India Review 2016 Page 226 of 408 pages India

Fiji 46 53 3 N/A 2.06%

Marshall Islands 27 76 46 N/A 1.08%

Micronesia (Fed. States) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Caledonia 96 73 51 52 2.00%

New Zealand 98 73 51 52 2.00%

Samoa 34 88 64 N/A -2.77%

Solomon Islands 14 71 1 N/A 3.36%

Tonga 26 57 38 N/A 0.60%

Vanuatu 33 58 47 N/A 3.80%

Source:

CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com

Updated:

This material was produced in 2010; it is subject to updating in 2012.

div style='margin-top:40%;padding-top:40%'>

India Review 2016 Page 227 of 408 pages India div style='margin-top:40%;padding-top:40%'>

Chapter 4

Investment Overview

India Review 2016 Page 228 of 408 pages India

Foreign Investment Climate

Background

India's diverse economy encompasses traditional village farming, modern agriculture, handicrafts, a wide range of modern industries, and a multitude of services. Services are the major source of economic growth, accounting for more than half of India's output with less than one third of its labor force. Slightly more than half of the work force is in agriculture, leading the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to articulate a rural economic development program that includes creating basic infrastructure to improve the lives of the rural poor and boost economic performance. The government has reduced controls on foreign trade and investment. Higher limits on foreign direct investment were permitted in a few key sectors, such as telecommunications. However, tariff spikes in sensitive categories, including agriculture, and incremental progress on economic reforms still hinder foreign access to India's vast and growing market. Privatization of government-owned industries remains stalled and continues to generate political debate; populist pressure from within the UPA government had restrained needed initiatives. In the long run, the huge and growing population is the fundamental social, economic, and environmental problem.

Foreign Investment Assessment

Openness to Foreign Investment

Until the 1990s India had a tightly controlled economy that allowed little foreign investments. From July 1991 industrial and investment policies have become progressively simpler, more liberal, and more transparent. Nonetheless, even today, foreign investment remains relatively controlled with equity limits for investors in many sectors and approval required for many types of foreign investment. In some of these sectors limits can be exceeded on a case-by-case basis. Sector details on investment norms follow later.

The current policy has automatic approval for foreign equity investment in many sectors. Investments in some sectors require approval by either the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) or the Cabinet Committee on Foreign Investment. These bodies have discretionary powers and the approval process is not always routine or transparent. The rules vary from industry to industry and are frequently changed, usually to become more liberal. In the majority of cases foreign investment does not get national treatment.

India Review 2016 Page 229 of 408 pages India

Transparency of Regulatory System

India has adequate laws and regulations governing commercial transactions. Central and state governments regulate the prices of "essential" products, including food grains, sugar, edible oils, basic medicines, energy, fertilizers, water and many industrial inputs. Many basic food products are under a dual pricing system-at fixed prices through government distribution outlets, at market prices on the open market. The Indian government is revising the 1956 Companies Act, which governs competition laws and commercial practices.

The Indian Parliament in May 2000 passed the Information Technology Bill, 2000 to provide the legal framework for India's growing e-commerce sector. This legislation covers digital signatures, electronic records, service obligations, and penalties for hacking and introducing computer viruses.

Labor Force

Total: 482.2 million estimated

By occupation: agriculture 60%, industry 17%, services 23%

Agriculture and Industry

Agriculture products: rice, wheat, oilseed, cotton, jute, tea, sugarcane, potatoes; cattle, water buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry; fish

Industries: textiles, chemicals, food processing, steel, transportation equipment, cement, mining, petroleum, machinery, software

Import Commodities and Partners

Commodities: crude oil, machinery, gems, fertilizer, chemicals

Partners: Belgium 5.5%, US 5.4%, China 5.3%, UK 4.4%

Export Commodities and Partners

Commodities: textile goods, gems and jewelry, engineering goods, chemicals, leather manufactures

Partners: US 18.6%, UAE 7.6%, Hong Kong 5.1%, UK 4.8%, China 4.5%, Germany 4.1%

Telephone System

Telephones- main lines in use: 48.917 million

Telephones- mobile cellular: 26,154,400

India Review 2016 Page 230 of 408 pages India

General Assessment: recent deregulation and liberalization of telecommunications laws and policies have prompted rapid change; local and long distance service provided throughout all regions of the country, with services primarily concentrated in the urban areas; steady improvement is taking place with the recent admission of private and private-public investors, but telephone density remains low at about seven for each 100 persons nationwide but only one per 100 persons in rural areas and a national waiting list of over 1.7 million; fastest growth is in cellular service with modest growth in fixed lines

Domestic: expansion of domestic service, although still weak in rural areas, resulted from increased competition and dramatic reductions in price led in large part by wireless service; mobile cellular service (both CDMA and GSM) introduced in 1994 and organized nationwide into four metropolitan cities and 19 telecom circles each with about three private service providers and one state-owned service provider; in recent years significant trunk capacity added in the form of fiber- optic cable and one of the world's largest domestic satellite systems, the Indian National Satellite system (INSAT), with five satellites supporting 33,000 very small aperture terminals (VSAT)

International: country code - 91; satellite earth stations - 8 Intelsat (Indian Ocean) and 1 Inmarsat (Indian Ocean region); nine gateway exchanges operating from Mumbai (Bombay), New Delhi, Kolkata (Calcutta), Chennai (Madras), Jalandhar, Kanpur, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad, and Ernakulam; 5 submarine cables, including Sea-Me-We-3 with landing sites at Cochin and Mumbai (Bombay), Fiber-Optic Link Around the Globe (FLAG) with landing site at Mumbai (Bombay), South Africa - Far East (SAFE) with landing site at Cochin, i2icn linking to Singapore with landing sites at Mumbai (Bombay) and Chennai (Madras), and Tata Indicom linking Singapore and Chennai (Madras), provide a significant increase in the bandwidth available for both voice and data traffic

Internet

Internet Hosts: 86,871

Internet users: 18.481 million

Roads, Airports, Ports and Harbors

Railways: 63,140 km

Highways: 2,525,989 km

Ports and harbors: Chennai (Madras), Cochin, Jawaharal Nehru, Kandla, Kolkata (Calcutta), Mumbai (Bombay), Vishakhapatnam

Airports: 333; w/paved runways: 234

India Review 2016 Page 231 of 408 pages India

Legal System and Considerations

India’s legal system is based on English common law. The government allows limited judicial review of legislative acts. India also accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, with reservations. Separate personal law codes apply to Muslims, Christians, and Hindus who inhabit India.

Dispute Settlement

At present, there are no Indo-American investment disputes over expropriation or nationalization. Indian courts provide adequate safeguards for the enforcement of property and contractual rights, but case backlogs frequently lead to long procedural delays. India is not a member of the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, but is a member of the New York Convention of 1958. In February 1996, a new arbitration law came into effect providing for quick arbitration. Companies have now begun to take cases to the Arbitration Council of India rather than through the slow judiciary process.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 is based on the UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Model Law. The act attempts to unify the adjudication process on commercial contracts in India with the rest of the world. It is a major step in the ongoing process of liberalization.

Corruption Perception Ranking

See listing by Transparency International in this Country Review, from the least to most corrupt countries, for India's current ranking.

Cultural Considerations

In India, the traditional greeting is the namaste. Namaste is offered by holding the palms of the hands together below the chin, nodding or bowing slightly, and saying the word, "namaste." Rough translation of the word suggests that it conveys peace, respect and hospitality from one person to another. Literally, it means something akin to "I bow to the divine in you." This soulful and lyrical greeting is useful for foreigners in any situation where a handshake may not be acceptable.

It is also worth noting that titles are highly valued in India and adhering to the strictures of formality is highly advisable. One should always use professional titles and avoid addressing another by his or her first name unless one is asked to do so, or one is a close friend.

For more information see:

United States’ State Department Commercial Guide

India Review 2016 Page 232 of 408 pages India

Foreign Investment Index

Foreign Investment Index

The Foreign Investment Index is a proprietary index measuring attractiveness to international investment flows. The Foreign Investment Index is calculated using an established methodology by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on a given country's economic stability (sustained economic growth, monetary stability, current account deficits, budget surplus), economic risk (risk of non-servicing of payments for goods or services, loans and trade-related finance, risk of sovereign default), business and investment climate (property rights, labor force and laws, regulatory transparency, openness to foreign investment, market conditions, and stability of government). Scores are assigned from 0-10 using the aforementioned criteria. A score of 0 marks the lowest level of foreign investment viability, while a score of 10 marks the highest level of foreign investment viability, according to this proprietary index.

Country Assessment

Afghanistan 2

Albania 4.5

Algeria 6

Andorra 9

Angola 4.5-5

Antigua 8.5

Argentina 5

Armenia 5

India Review 2016 Page 233 of 408 pages India

Australia 9.5

Austria 9-9.5

Azerbaijan 5

Bahamas 9

Bahrain 7.5

Bangladesh 4.5

Barbados 9

Belarus 4

Belgium 9

Belize 7.5

Benin 5.5

Bhutan 4.5

Bolivia 4.5

Bosnia-Herzegovina 5

Botswana 7.5-8

Brazil 8

Brunei 7

Bulgaria 5.5

India Review 2016 Page 234 of 408 pages India

Burkina Faso 4

Burma (Myanmar) 4.5

Burundi 4

Cambodia 4.5

Cameroon 5

Canada 9.5

Cape Verde 6

Central African Republic 3

Chad 4

Chile 9

China 7.5

China: Hong Kong 8.5

China: Taiwan 8.5

Colombia 7

Comoros 4

Congo DRC 4

Congo RC 5

Costa Rica 8

India Review 2016 Page 235 of 408 pages India

Cote d'Ivoire 4.5

Croatia 7

Cuba 4.5

Cyprus 7

Czech Republic 8.5

Denmark 9.5

Djibouti 4.5

Dominica 6

Dominican Republic 6.5

East Timor 4.5

Ecuador 5.5

Egypt 4.5-5

El Salvador 6

Equatorial Guinea 4.5

Eritrea 3.5

Estonia 8

Ethiopia 4.5

Fiji 5

India Review 2016 Page 236 of 408 pages India

Finland 9

Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia 5

France 9-9.5

Gabon 5.5

Gambia 5

Georgia 5

Germany 9-9.5

Ghana 5.5

Greece 5

Grenada 7.5

Guatemala 5.5

Guinea 3.5

Guinea-Bissau 3.5

Guyana 4.5

Haiti 4

Holy See (Vatican) n/a

Hong Kong (China) 8.5

Honduras 5.5

India Review 2016 Page 237 of 408 pages India

Hungary 8

Iceland 8-8.5

India 8

Indonesia 5.5

Iran 4

Iraq 3

Ireland 8

Israel 8.5

Italy 8

Jamaica 5.5

Japan 9.5

Jordan 6

Kazakhstan 6

Kenya 5

Kiribati 5.5

Korea, North 1

Korea, South 9

Kosovo 4.5

India Review 2016 Page 238 of 408 pages India

Kuwait 8.5

Kyrgyzstan 4.5

Laos 4

Latvia 7

Lebanon 5

Lesotho 5.5

Liberia 3.5

Libya 3

Liechtenstein 9

Lithuania 7.5

Luxembourg 9-9.5

Madagascar 4.5

Malawi 4.5

Malaysia 8.5

Maldives 6.5

Mali 5

Malta 9

Marshall Islands 5

India Review 2016 Page 239 of 408 pages India

Mauritania 4.5

Mauritius 7.5-8

Mexico 6.5-7

Micronesia 5

Moldova 4.5-5

Monaco 9

Mongolia 5

Montenegro 5.5

Morocco 7.5

Mozambique 5

Namibia 7.5

Nauru 4.5

Nepal 4

Netherlands 9-9.5

New Zealand 9.5

Nicaragua 5

Niger 4.5

Nigeria 4.5

India Review 2016 Page 240 of 408 pages India

Norway 9-9.5

Oman 8

Pakistan 4

Palau 4.5-5

Panama 7

Papua New Guinea 5

Paraguay 6

Peru 6

Philippines 6

Poland 8

Portugal 7.5-8

Qatar 9

Romania 6-6.5

Russia 6

Rwanda 4

Saint Kitts and Nevis 8

Saint Lucia 8

Saint Vincent and Grenadines 7

India Review 2016 Page 241 of 408 pages India

Samoa 7

San Marino 8.5

Sao Tome and Principe 4.5-5

Saudi Arabia 7

Senegal 6

Serbia 6

Seychelles 5

Sierra Leone 4

Singapore 9.5

Slovak Republic (Slovakia) 8.5

Slovenia 8.5-9

Solomon Islands 5

Somalia 2

South Africa 8

Spain 7.5-8

Sri Lanka 5.5

Sudan 4

Suriname 5

India Review 2016 Page 242 of 408 pages India

Swaziland 4.5

Sweden 9.5

Switzerland 9.5

Syria 2.5

Tajikistan 4

Taiwan (China) 8.5

Tanzania 5

Thailand 7.5-8

Togo 4.5-5

Tonga 5.5-6

Trinidad and Tobago 8-8.5

Tunisia 6

Turkey 6.5-7

Turkmenistan 4

Tuvalu 7

Uganda 5

Ukraine 4.5-5

United Arab Emirates 8.5

India Review 2016 Page 243 of 408 pages India

United Kingdom 9

United States 9

Uruguay 6.5-7

Uzbekistan 4

Vanuatu 6

Venezuela 5

Vietnam 5.5

Yemen 3

Zambia 4.5-5

Zimbabwe 3.5

Editor's Note:

As of 2015, the global economic crisis (emerging in 2008) had affected many countries across the world, resulting in changes to their rankings. Among those countries affected were top tier economies, such as the United Kingdom, Iceland, Switzerland and Austria. However, in all these cases, their rankings have moved back upward in the last couple of years as anxieties have eased. Other top tier countries, such as Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy, suffered some effects due to debt woes and the concomitant effect on the euro zone. Greece, another euro zone nation, was also downgraded due to its sovereign debt crisis; however, Greece's position on the precipice of default incurred a sharper downgrade than the other four euro zone countries mentioned above. Cyprus' exposure to Greek bank yielded a downgrade in its case. Slovenia and Latvia have been slightly downgraded due to a mix of economic and political concerns but could easily be upgraded in a future assessment, should these concerns abate. Meanwhile, the crisis in eastern Ukraine fueled downgrades in that country and neighboring Russia.

Despite the "trifecta of tragedy" in Japan in 2011 -- the earthquake, the ensuing tsunami, and the

India Review 2016 Page 244 of 408 pages India resulting nuclear crisis -- and the appreciable destabilization of the economic and political terrain therein, this country has only slightly been downgraded. Japan's challenges have been assessed to be transient, the government remains accountable, and there is little risk of default. Both India and China retain their rankings; India holds a slightly higher ranking than China due to its record of democratic representation and accountability.

There were shifts in opposite directions for Mali and Nigeria versus the Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, and Burundi. Mali was slightly upgraded due to its efforts to return to constitutional order following the 2012 coup and to neutralize the threat of separatists and Islamists. Likewise, a new government in Nigeria generated a slight upgrade as the country attempts to confront corruption, crime, and terrorism. But the Central African Republic was downgraded due to the takeover of the government by Seleka rebels and the continued decline into lawlessness in that country. Likewise, the attempts by the leaders of Burundi and Burkina Faso to hold onto power by by-passing the constitution raised eybrows and resulted in downgrades.

Political unrest in Libya and Algeria have contributed to a decision to marginally downgrade these countries as well. Syria incurred a sharper downgrade due to the devolution into de facto civil war and the dire security threat posed by Islamist terrorists. Iraq saw a similar downgrade as a result of the takeover of wide swaths of territory and the threat of genocide at the hands of Islamist terrorists. Yemen, likewise, has been downgraded due to political instability at the hands of secessionists, terrorists, Houthi rebels, and the intervention of external parties. Conversely, Egypt and Tunisia saw slight upgrades as their political environments stabilize.

At the low end of the spectrum, devolving security conditions and/or economic crisis have resulted in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Zimbabwe maintaining their low ratings.

The United States continues to retain its previous slight downgrade due to the enduring threat of default surrounding the debt ceiling in that country, matched by a conflict-ridden political climate. In the case of Mexico, there is limited concern about default, but increasing alarm over the security situation in that country and the government’s ability to contain it. In Argentina, a default to bond holders resulted in a downgrade to that country. Finally, a small but significant upgrade was attributed to Cuba due to its recent pro-business reforms and its normalization of ties with the Unitd States.

Source:

CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com

Updated:

India Review 2016 Page 245 of 408 pages India

2015

Corruption Perceptions Index

Corruption Perceptions Index

Transparency International: Corruption Perceptions Index

Editor's Note:

Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index is a composite index which ranks countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials. This index indicates the views of national and international business people and analysts about the levels of corruption in each country. The highest (and best) level of transparency is indicated by the number, 10. The lower (and worse) levels of transparency are indicated by lower numbers.

Rank Country/Territory CPI 2009 Surveys Confidence Score Used Range

1 New Zealand 9.4 6 9.1 - 9.5

2 Denmark 9.3 6 9.1 - 9.5

3 Singapore 9.2 9 9.0 - 9.4

3 Sweden 9.2 6 9.0 - 9.3

5 Switzerland 9.0 6 8.9 - 9.1

6 Finland 8.9 6 8.4 - 9.4

6 Netherlands 8.9 6 8.7 - 9.0

8 Australia 8.7 8 8.3 - 9.0

India Review 2016 Page 246 of 408 pages India

8 Canada 8.7 6 8.5 - 9.0

8 Iceland 8.7 4 7.5 - 9.4

11 Norway 8.6 6 8.2 - 9.1

12 Hong Kong 8.2 8 7.9 - 8.5

12 Luxembourg 8.2 6 7.6 - 8.8

14 Germany 8.0 6 7.7 - 8.3

14 Ireland 8.0 6 7.8 - 8.4

16 Austria 7.9 6 7.4 - 8.3

17 Japan 7.7 8 7.4 - 8.0

17 United Kingdom 7.7 6 7.3 - 8.2

19 United States 7.5 8 6.9 - 8.0

20 Barbados 7.4 4 6.6 - 8.2

21 Belgium 7.1 6 6.9 - 7.3

22 Qatar 7.0 6 5.8 - 8.1

22 Saint Lucia 7.0 3 6.7 - 7.5

24 France 6.9 6 6.5 - 7.3

25 Chile 6.7 7 6.5 - 6.9

25 Uruguay 6.7 5 6.4 - 7.1

India Review 2016 Page 247 of 408 pages India

27 Cyprus 6.6 4 6.1 - 7.1

27 Estonia 6.6 8 6.1 - 6.9

27 Slovenia 6.6 8 6.3 - 6.9

30 United Arab Emirates 6.5 5 5.5 - 7.5

31 Saint Vincent and the 6.4 3 4.9 - 7.5 Grenadines

32 Israel 6.1 6 5.4 - 6.7

32 Spain 6.1 6 5.5 - 6.6

34 Dominica 5.9 3 4.9 - 6.7

35 Portugal 5.8 6 5.5 - 6.2

35 Puerto Rico 5.8 4 5.2 - 6.3

37 Botswana 5.6 6 5.1 - 6.3

37 Taiwan 5.6 9 5.4 - 5.9

39 Brunei Darussalam 5.5 4 4.7 - 6.4

39 Oman 5.5 5 4.4 - 6.5

39 Korea (South) 5.5 9 5.3 - 5.7

42 Mauritius 5.4 6 5.0 - 5.9

43 Costa Rica 5.3 5 4.7 - 5.9

43 Macau 5.3 3 3.3 - 6.9

India Review 2016 Page 248 of 408 pages India

45 Malta 5.2 4 4.0 - 6.2

46 Bahrain 5.1 5 4.2 - 5.8

46 Cape Verde 5.1 3 3.3 - 7.0

46 Hungary 5.1 8 4.6 - 5.7

49 Bhutan 5.0 4 4.3 - 5.6

49 Jordan 5.0 7 3.9 - 6.1

49 Poland 5.0 8 4.5 - 5.5

52 Czech Republic 4.9 8 4.3 - 5.6

52 Lithuania 4.9 8 4.4 - 5.4

54 Seychelles 4.8 3 3.0 - 6.7

55 South Africa 4.7 8 4.3 - 4.9

56 Latvia 4.5 6 4.1 - 4.9

56 Malaysia 4.5 9 4.0 - 5.1

56 Namibia 4.5 6 3.9 - 5.1

56 Samoa 4.5 3 3.3 - 5.3

56 Slovakia 4.5 8 4.1 - 4.9

61 Cuba 4.4 3 3.5 - 5.1

61 Turkey 4.4 7 3.9 - 4.9

India Review 2016 Page 249 of 408 pages India

63 Italy 4.3 6 3.8 - 4.9

63 Saudi Arabia 4.3 5 3.1 - 5.3

65 Tunisia 4.2 6 3.0 - 5.5

66 Croatia 4.1 8 3.7 - 4.5

66 Georgia 4.1 7 3.4 - 4.7

66 Kuwait 4.1 5 3.2 - 5.1

69 Ghana 3.9 7 3.2 - 4.6

69 Montenegro 3.9 5 3.5 - 4.4

71 Bulgaria 3.8 8 3.2 - 4.5

71 FYR Macedonia 3.8 6 3.4 - 4.2

71 Greece 3.8 6 3.2 - 4.3

71 Romania 3.8 8 3.2 - 4.3

75 Brazil 3.7 7 3.3 - 4.3

75 Colombia 3.7 7 3.1 - 4.3

75 Peru 3.7 7 3.4 - 4.1

75 Suriname 3.7 3 3.0 - 4.7

79 Burkina Faso 3.6 7 2.8 - 4.4

79 China 3.6 9 3.0 - 4.2

India Review 2016 Page 250 of 408 pages India

79 Swaziland 3.6 3 3.0 - 4.7

79 Trinidad and Tobago 3.6 4 3.0 - 4.3

83 Serbia 3.5 6 3.3 - 3.9

84 El Salvador 3.4 5 3.0 - 3.8

84 Guatemala 3.4 5 3.0 - 3.9

84 India 3.4 10 3.2 - 3.6

84 Panama 3.4 5 3.1 - 3.7

84 Thailand 3.4 9 3.0 - 3.8

89 Lesotho 3.3 6 2.8 - 3.8

89 Malawi 3.3 7 2.7 - 3.9

89 Mexico 3.3 7 3.2 - 3.5

89 Moldova 3.3 6 2.7 - 4.0

89 Morocco 3.3 6 2.8 - 3.9

89 Rwanda 3.3 4 2.9 - 3.7

95 Albania 3.2 6 3.0 - 3.3

95 Vanuatu 3.2 3 2.3 - 4.7

97 Liberia 3.1 3 1.9 - 3.8

97 Sri Lanka 3.1 7 2.8 - 3.4

India Review 2016 Page 251 of 408 pages India

99 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.0 7 2.6 - 3.4

99 Dominican Republic 3.0 5 2.9 - 3.2

99 Jamaica 3.0 5 2.8 - 3.3

99 Madagascar 3.0 7 2.8 - 3.2

99 Senegal 3.0 7 2.5 - 3.6

99 Tonga 3.0 3 2.6 - 3.3

99 Zambia 3.0 7 2.8 - 3.2

106 Argentina 2.9 7 2.6 - 3.1

106 Benin 2.9 6 2.3 - 3.4

106 Gabon 2.9 3 2.6 - 3.1

106 Gambia 2.9 5 1.6 - 4.0

106 Niger 2.9 5 2.7 - 3.0

111 Algeria 2.8 6 2.5 - 3.1

111 Djibouti 2.8 4 2.3 - 3.2

111 Egypt 2.8 6 2.6 - 3.1

111 Indonesia 2.8 9 2.4 - 3.2

111 Kiribati 2.8 3 2.3 - 3.3

111 Mali 2.8 6 2.4 - 3.2

India Review 2016 Page 252 of 408 pages India

111 Sao Tome and Principe 2.8 3 2.4 - 3.3

111 Solomon Islands 2.8 3 2.3 - 3.3

111 Togo 2.8 5 1.9 - 3.9

120 Armenia 2.7 7 2.6 - 2.8

120 Bolivia 2.7 6 2.4 - 3.1

120 Ethiopia 2.7 7 2.4 - 2.9

120 Kazakhstan 2.7 7 2.1 - 3.3

120 Mongolia 2.7 7 2.4 - 3.0

120 Vietnam 2.7 9 2.4 - 3.1

126 Eritrea 2.6 4 1.6 - 3.8

126 Guyana 2.6 4 2.5 - 2.7

126 Syria 2.6 5 2.2 - 2.9

126 Tanzania 2.6 7 2.4 - 2.9

130 Honduras 2.5 6 2.2 - 2.8

130 Lebanon 2.5 3 1.9 - 3.1

130 Libya 2.5 6 2.2 - 2.8

130 Maldives 2.5 4 1.8 - 3.2

130 Mauritania 2.5 7 2.0 - 3.3

India Review 2016 Page 253 of 408 pages India

130 Mozambique 2.5 7 2.3 - 2.8

130 Nicaragua 2.5 6 2.3 - 2.7

130 Nigeria 2.5 7 2.2 - 2.7

130 Uganda 2.5 7 2.1 - 2.8

139 Bangladesh 2.4 7 2.0 - 2.8

139 Belarus 2.4 4 2.0 - 2.8

139 Pakistan 2.4 7 2.1 - 2.7

139 Philippines 2.4 9 2.1 - 2.7

143 Azerbaijan 2.3 7 2.0 - 2.6

143 Comoros 2.3 3 1.6 - 3.3

143 Nepal 2.3 6 2.0 - 2.6

146 Cameroon 2.2 7 1.9 - 2.6

146 Ecuador 2.2 5 2.0 - 2.5

146 Kenya 2.2 7 1.9 - 2.5

146 Russia 2.2 8 1.9 - 2.4

146 Sierra Leone 2.2 5 1.9 - 2.4

146 Timor-Leste 2.2 5 1.8 - 2.6

146 Ukraine 2.2 8 2.0 - 2.6

India Review 2016 Page 254 of 408 pages India

146 Zimbabwe 2.2 7 1.7 - 2.8

154 Côte d´Ivoire 2.1 7 1.8 - 2.4

154 Papua New Guinea 2.1 5 1.7 - 2.5

154 Paraguay 2.1 5 1.7 - 2.5

154 Yemen 2.1 4 1.6 - 2.5

158 Cambodia 2.0 8 1.8 - 2.2

158 Central African Republic 2.0 4 1.9 - 2.2

158 Laos 2.0 4 1.6 - 2.6

158 Tajikistan 2.0 8 1.6 - 2.5

162 Angola 1.9 5 1.8 - 1.9

162 Congo Brazzaville 1.9 5 1.6 - 2.1

162 Democratic Republic of 1.9 5 1.7 - 2.1 Congo

162 Guinea-Bissau 1.9 3 1.8 - 2.0

162 Kyrgyzstan 1.9 7 1.8 - 2.1

162 Venezuela 1.9 7 1.8 - 2.0

168 Burundi 1.8 6 1.6 - 2.0

168 Equatorial Guinea 1.8 3 1.6 - 1.9

168 Guinea 1.8 5 1.7 - 1.8

India Review 2016 Page 255 of 408 pages India

168 Haiti 1.8 3 1.4 - 2.3

168 Iran 1.8 3 1.7 - 1.9

168 Turkmenistan 1.8 4 1.7 - 1.9

174 Uzbekistan 1.7 6 1.5 - 1.8

175 Chad 1.6 6 1.5 - 1.7

176 Iraq 1.5 3 1.2 - 1.8

176 Sudan 1.5 5 1.4 - 1.7

178 Myanmar 1.4 3 0.9 - 1.8

179 Afghanistan 1.3 4 1.0 - 1.5

180 Somalia 1.1 3 0.9 - 1.4

Methodology:

As noted above, the highest (and best) level of transparency with the least perceived corruption is indicated by the number, 10. The lower (and worse) levels of transparency are indicated by lower numbers.

According to Transparency International, the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) table shows a country's ranking and score, the number of surveys used to determine the score, and the confidence range of the scoring.

The rank shows how one country compares to others included in the index. The CPI score indicates the perceived level of public-sector corruption in a country/territory.

The CPI is based on 13 independent surveys. However, not all surveys include all countries. The surveys used column indicates how many surveys were relied upon to determine the score for that country.

India Review 2016 Page 256 of 408 pages India

The confidence range indicates the reliability of the CPI scores and tells us that allowing for a margin of error, we can be 90% confident that the true score for this country lies within this range.

Note:

Kosovo, which separated from the Yugoslav successor state of Serbia, is not listed above. No calculation is available for Kosovo at this time, however, a future corruption index by Transparency International may include the world's newest country in its tally. Taiwan has been listed above despite its contested status; while Taiwan claims sovereign status, China claims ultimate jurisdiction over Taiwan. Hong Kong, which is also under the rubric of Chinese sovereignty, is listed above. Note as well that Puerto Rico, which is a United States domain, is also included in the list above. These inclusions likely have to do with the size and fairly autonomous status of their economies.

Source:

Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index; available at URL: http://www.transparency.org

Updated:

Uploaded in 2011 using most recent ranking available; reviewed in 2015.

Competitiveness Ranking

Competitiveness Ranking

Editor's Note:

The Global Competitiveness Report’s competitiveness ranking is based on the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), which was developed for the World Economic Forum. The GCI is based on a number of competitiveness considerations, and provides a comprehensive picture of the competitiveness landscape in countries around the world. The competitiveness considerations are: institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market development, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication, and innovation. The rankings are calculated from both publicly available data and the Executive Opinion Survey.

India Review 2016 Page 257 of 408 pages India

GCI 2010 GCI 2010 GCI 2009 Change Country/Economy Rank Score Rank 2009-2010

Switzerland 1 5.63 1 0

Sweden 2 5.56 4 2

Singapore 3 5.48 3 0

United States 4 5.43 2 -2

Germany 5 5.39 7 2

Japan 6 5.37 8 2

Finland 7 5.37 6 -1

Netherlands 8 5.33 10 2

Denmark 9 5.32 5 -4

Canada 10 5.30 9 -1

Hong Kong SAR 11 5.30 11 0

United Kingdom 12 5.25 13 1

Taiwan, China 13 5.21 12 -1

Norway 14 5.14 14 0

France 15 5.13 16 1

Australia 16 5.11 15 -1

India Review 2016 Page 258 of 408 pages India

Qatar 17 5.10 22 5

Austria 18 5.09 17 -1

Belgium 19 5.07 18 -1

Luxembourg 20 5.05 21 1

Saudi Arabia 21 4.95 28 7

Korea, Rep. 22 4.93 19 -3

New Zealand 23 4.92 20 -3

Israel 24 4.91 27 3

United Arab Emirates 25 4.89 23 -2

Malaysia 26 4.88 24 -2

China 27 4.84 29 2

Brunei Darussalam 28 4.75 32 4

Ireland 29 4.74 25 -4

Chile 30 4.69 30 0

Iceland 31 4.68 26 -5

Tunisia 32 4.65 40 8

Estonia 33 4.61 35 2

Oman 34 4.61 41 7

India Review 2016 Page 259 of 408 pages India

Kuwait 35 4.59 39 4

Czech Republic 36 4.57 31 -5

Bahrain 37 4.54 38 1

Thailand 38 4.51 36 -2

Poland 39 4.51 46 7

Cyprus 40 4.50 34 -6

Puerto Rico 41 4.49 42 1

Spain 42 4.49 33 -9

Barbados 43 4.45 44 1

Indonesia 44 4.43 54 10

Slovenia 45 4.42 37 -8

Portugal 46 4.38 43 -3

Lithuania 47 4.38 53 6

Italy 48 4.37 48 0

Montenegro 49 4.36 62 13

Malta 50 4.34 52 2

India 51 4.33 49 -2

Hungary 52 4.33 58 6

India Review 2016 Page 260 of 408 pages India

Panama 53 4.33 59 6

South Africa 54 4.32 45 -9

Mauritius 55 4.32 57 2

Costa Rica 56 4.31 55 -1

Azerbaijan 57 4.29 51 -6

Brazil 58 4.28 56 -2

Vietnam 59 4.27 75 16

Slovak Republic 60 4.25 47 -13

Turkey 61 4.25 61 0

Sri Lanka 62 4.25 79 17

Russian Federation 63 4.24 63 0

Uruguay 64 4.23 65 1

Jordan 65 4.21 50 -15

Mexico 66 4.19 60 -6

Romania 67 4.16 64 -3

Colombia 68 4.14 69 1

Iran 69 4.14 n/a n/a

Latvia 70 4.14 68 -2

India Review 2016 Page 261 of 408 pages India

Bulgaria 71 4.13 76 5

Kazakhstan 72 4.12 67 -5

Peru 73 4.11 78 5

Namibia 74 4.09 74 0

Morocco 75 4.08 73 -2

Botswana 76 4.05 66 -10

Croatia 77 4.04 72 -5

Guatemala 78 4.04 80 2

Macedonia, FYR 79 4.02 84 5

Rwanda 80 4.00 n/a n/a

Egypt 81 4.00 70 -11

El Salvador 82 3.99 77 -5

Greece 83 3.99 71 -12

Trinidad and Tobago 84 3.97 86 2

Philippines 85 3.96 87 2

Algeria 86 3.96 83 -3

Argentina 87 3.95 85 -2

Albania 88 3.94 96 8

India Review 2016 Page 262 of 408 pages India

Ukraine 89 3.90 82 -7

Gambia, The 90 3.90 81 -9

Honduras 91 3.89 89 -2

Lebanon 92 3.89 n/a n/a

Georgia 93 3.86 90 -3

Moldova 94 3.86 n/a n/a

Jamaica 95 3.85 91 -4

Serbia 96 3.84 93 -3

Syria 97 3.79 94 -3

Armenia 98 3.76 97 -1

Mongolia 99 3.75 117 18

Libya 100 3.74 88 -12

Dominican Republic 101 3.72 95 -6

Bosnia and Herzegovina 102 3.70 109 7

Benin 103 3.69 103 0

Senegal 104 3.67 92 -12

Ecuador 105 3.65 105 0

Kenya 106 3.65 98 -8

India Review 2016 Page 263 of 408 pages India

Bangladesh 107 3.64 106 -1

Bolivia 108 3.64 120 12

Cambodia 109 3.63 110 1

Guyana 110 3.62 104 -6

Cameroon 111 3.58 111 0

Nicaragua 112 3.57 115 3

Tanzania 113 3.56 100 -13

Ghana 114 3.56 114 0

Zambia 115 3.55 112 -3

Tajikistan 116 3.53 122 6

Cape Verde 117 3.51 n/a n/a

Uganda 118 3.51 108 -10

Ethiopia 119 3.51 118 -1

Paraguay 120 3.49 124 4

Kyrgyz Republic 121 3.49 123 2

Venezuela 122 3.48 113 -9

Pakistan 123 3.48 101 -22

Madagascar 124 3.46 121 -3

India Review 2016 Page 264 of 408 pages India

Malawi 125 3.45 119 -6

Swaziland 126 3.40 n/a n/a

Nigeria 127 3.38 99 -28

Lesotho 128 3.36 107 -21

Côte d'Ivoire 129 3.35 116 -13

Nepal 130 3.34 125 -5

Mozambique 131 3.32 129 -2

Mali 132 3.28 130 -2

Timor-Leste 133 3.23 126 -7

Burkina Faso 134 3.20 128 -6

Mauritania 135 3.14 127 -8

Zimbabwe 136 3.03 132 -4

Burundi 137 2.96 133 -4

Angola 138 2.93 n/a n/a

Chad 139 2.73 131 -8

Methodology:

The competitiveness rankings are calculated from both publicly available data and the Executive Opinion Survey, a comprehensive annual survey conducted by the World Economic Forum

India Review 2016 Page 265 of 408 pages India together with its network of Partner Institutes (leading research institutes and business organizations) in the countries covered by the Report.

Highlights according to WEF --

- The United States falls two places to fourth position, overtaken by Sweden and Singapore in the rankings of the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011 - The People’s Republic of China continues to move up the rankings, with marked improvements in several other Asian countries - Germany moves up two places to fifth place, leading the Eurozone countries - Switzerland tops the rankings

Source:

World Economic Forum; available at URL: http://www.weforum.org

Updated:

2011 using most recent ranking available; reviewed in 2015.

Taxation

Corporate tax

The main corporate tax rate is around 42 percent. Up to 30 percent of income is taxable for domestic companies are taxable, in addition to a 10 percent surchange and a 2 percent fee. For foreign companies, 40 percent of income is taxable, with a 2.5 percent surcharge and 2 percent education fee.

Individual tax

Taxes for individuals are charged at progressive rates up to 30 percent. In addition, there is a 10 percent surcharge for some higher income brackets and a 2 percent educational fee.

India Review 2016 Page 266 of 408 pages India

Capital gains

Short-term capital gains are taxed as income, while long-term capital gains of companies and individuals are taxed at 20 percent. As well, there is a surcharge and an educational fee.

Indirect tax

There is a value-added tax (VAT), which applies to various goods and services at a standard rate of 12.5 percent. There are lower rates of 4 percent, which applies to agricultural and industrial goods and pharmaceuticals, and 1 percent, which applies to gold and silver. A

Stock Market

By the end of the 1990s, India's market had 5,863 listed companies, the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association had 3200 listed companies, the Delhi Stock Exchange ended with 3880 listed companies, the Madras Stock Exchange had 1750 listed companies, and the National Stock Exchange, in Mumbai, had 1268 listed companies.

The indices of the Mumbai Stock Exchange are the BSE Sensex 30, the BSE 100, the BSE 200, and the Dollex.

Foreign investors wishing to invest in the market are required to register with the Securities and Exchange Board of India. Foreign investment in listed stocks is limited to 24 percent.

The Over- the- Counter Exchange of India, incorporated in 1990, is the country's first electronic exchange, and is primarily geared toward small- and medium-sized companies with post-issue, paid-up capital of less than $70 million. At the end of 1990s the OTC had 115 listed companies The OTCEI is located in Mumbai.

For more information on the stock exchanges of India, see URLs:

• The National Stock Exchange of India: • http://www.nseindia.com/

• The Calcutta Stock Exchange Association: • http://www.cse-india.com/

India Review 2016 Page 267 of 408 pages India

• The Madras Stock Exchange: • http://www.mseltd.com/

• The Over- the- Counter Exchange of India: • http://www.otcei.net/

Partner Links

Partner Links

India Review 2016 Page 268 of 408 pages India

Chapter 5

Social Overview

India Review 2016 Page 269 of 408 pages India

People

Demography

Although India occupies only 2.4 percent of the world's land area, it supports over 15 percent of the world's population. With India being home to 1.2 billion people, only China has a larger population. Forty percent of Indians are younger than 15 years old. About 65 percent of the people live in more than 550,000 villages, and the remainder in more than 600 towns and cities.

Cultural Diversity

Culturally, India is one of the world's most heterogeneous countries with an extensive and diverse mixture of ethnic, linguistic and religious groups. Throughout India's history, the area of the Indian sub-continent was subject to successive incursions of settlers and invaders including Aryans, Arabs, Parthians, Greeks and other Europeans from the west and northwest; Central Asians from the north and north west; Mongolians, Tibetans, Burmese and other East Asians from the north east reaches and the Himalayans; as well as Malay, Asian and Austro-Asian groups from the east and south east; not to mention African and Oceanic people from the south and south west. This mélange of people has contributed to a variety of ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural typologies on the Indian sub-continent today.

The migration patterns of the diverse people into India appear to have contributed to the country's complexity while the existing ethno-linguistic variety of India's rich and complicated heritage reflects the major cultural movements mentioned above. In this scheme, the Indo-European group of languages and ethnicities references the peoples of northwest India and the Gangetic plains, and this group is reflective of migrations of people from Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia. Indeed, the languages of this part of India share the linguistic geneaology with modern-day French, English, Greek and Persian. The other major category, the Dravidian ethno-linguistic group, appears to include the people of central and southern India, and is reflective of some of the older languages and ethnic groups of India, such as the Tamil of Madras Tamil-Nadu, the Telegu of Andhra Pradesh, Kannada in Karnataka and Malayalam in Kerala.

In addition, there are tribal groups, such as the Oraon, the Munda and the Santhal, in the eastern

India Review 2016 Page 270 of 408 pages India highlands and central India whose language suggest Austro-Asiatic roots, while the Mizo, the Naga, the Lushai and the Khasi in the north and east, whose languages are reflective of the Tibeto- Burman ethno-linguistic family. This small collection of tribes has managed to retain its ethnic and linguistic identity largely because it is located in a fairly remote part of India, and the culture has been protected by national policies. Efforts by missionaries working to standardize and preserve the languages of these tribes have also been instrumental in this regard.

There are also a number of groups descended from ancient settlers in India. These groups include the Jews, the first group of which reportedly migrated from West Asia and settled in Cranganore on the Malabar Coast of Kerala in the first century, and the second group of which left the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century as Islam flourished. Another such group, the Parsis, settled in India in the 8th century, after escaping Muslim persecution in Persia.

The Europeans also contributed their ethnic and cultural influences to India. The Portuguese were among the first Europeans to arrive in India, although they did not exert dominion over the sub- continent in the manner of the British. Goa, on the west coast of India, is the center of historic Portuguese settlement in India. Portuguese Indians, generally referred to as Goans, about half of whom live in the state of Goa, are descended from Indians in the former Portuguese colony. Many of them assimilated Portuguese culture, and still others are the descendants of Indo-Portuguese marriages, which were not only acceptable, but, indeed, encouraged. In addition, the Austrians, the Danes, the Dutch, and the French held small territories for shorter periods.

European Indians -- descended from British men (in the colonial service and the military) and Hindu or Muslim women - make up the largest group of Indians with some degree of non- indigenous roots. Because Anglo-Indian unions were frowned upon, this group of people has generally married among themselves, thus developing an ethnic and cultural sub-caste of its own. Its characteristics include adherence to Christianity, and a more Westernized diet, dress, and speech.

Another noteworthy ethnic group, known collectively as Siddhis, are the descendants of Africans brought to India as slaves. Although most Indians with African origins are descendants of the large influx of slaves brought to western India in the 17th century, the first Africans reportedly arrived on the Konkani Coast in the first century during the time of the Arab slave trade. Today, most Siddhis tend to be Muslims and live predominantly in Gujarat, Daman and Diu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and other states and union territories, where they are designated as Scheduled Tribe members.

Linguistic Diversity

In terms of language, the official language of India is Hindi although English also has official status.

India Review 2016 Page 271 of 408 pages India

For use in certain official capacities, the constitution recognizes 18 Scheduled Languages: Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu. Of the four major language families, there are officially 112 "mother tongues," each with 10,000 or more speakers; 33 languages spoken by one million or more persons. The total number of languages and dialects varies depending on source and how counted; between 179 and 188 languages and between 49 and 544 dialects have been tabulated.

About 80 percent of Indians speak a language derived from the Indo-Aryan language family. Of the Indo-Aryan group of languages, Persian and the languages of Afghanistan are close relatives, belonging, like the Indo-Aryan languages, to the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family. Brought into India from the northwest during the second millennium before the common era or B.C.E., the Indo-Aryan tongues spread throughout the north, gradually displacing the earlier languages of the area. Over a period of centuries, Indo-Aryan languages came to predominate in the northern and central portions of South Asia.

By about 500 B.C.E, the Sanskrit language, used in religious rites, had also developed along independent lines and gave rise to an elaborate science of grammar and phonetics, as well as an alphabetical system seen by some scholars as superior to the Roman system. Today, Sankrit is still used in academic centers and even on television in India.

Apart from the Indo-Aryan languages, around 18 percent of the Indian populace speak Dravidian languages. Most Dravidian speakers reside in South India, where Indo-Aryan influence was less extensive than in the north. Only a few isolated groups of Dravidian speakers, such as the Gonds in Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, and the Kurukhs in Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, remain in the north as representatives of the Dravidian speakers who presumably once dominated much more of South Asia. (The only other significant population of Dravidian speakers are the Brahuis in Pakistan.) The oldest documented Dravidian language is Tamil, with a substantial body of literature, particularly the Cankam poetry, going back to the first century in the common era or C.E. Kannada and Telugu developed extensive bodies of literature after the sixth century, while Malayalam split from Tamil as a literary language by the 12th century.

In spite of the profound influence of the Sanskrit language and Sanskritic culture on the Dravidian languages, a strong consciousness of the distinctness of Dravidian languages from Sanskrit remained. All four major Dravidian languages had consciously differentiated styles varying in the amount of Sanskrit they contained. In the 20th century, as part of an anti-Brahman movement in Tamil Nadu, a strong movement arose to "purify" Tamil of its Sanskrit elements, with mixed success. The other three Dravidian languages were not much affected by this trend.

There are smaller groups, mostly tribal peoples, who speak Sino-Tibetan and Austroasiatic languages. Sino-Tibetan speakers live along the Himalayan fringe from Jammu and Kashmir to

India Review 2016 Page 272 of 408 pages India eastern Assam. The Austroasiatic languages, composed of the Munda tongues and others thought to be related to them, are spoken by groups of tribal peoples from West Bengal through Bihar and Orissa and into Madhya Pradesh.

Despite this vast and extensive linguistic diversity in India, many scholars treat South Asia as a single linguistic area because the various language families share a number of features not found together outside South Asia.

Religion

Although 80 percent of the people are Hindu, India also is the home to more than 120 million Muslims, making it home to one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. The population also includes Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Zorastrians, and Parsis. Indeed, one of India's greatest legacies is the fact that it is the birthplace of four major religions - Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism.

Social Life

The caste system reflects Indian historical occupation and religiously defined hierarchies. Traditionally, there are four castes identified, plus a category of outcastes, earlier called "untouchables" but now referred to as "Dalits," or "the oppressed." In reality, however, there are thousands of sub-castes, and many Indians identify with these sub-castes. Despite economic modernization and laws countering discrimination against the lower end of the class structure, the caste system remains an important factor and de facto reality in Indian society. Today, religion, caste and language are major determinants of social and political organizations in India today.

Human Development

The population of India has a life expectancy at birth of 69.25 years (66.87 years for males, and 71.9 years for females) and an infant mortality rate of 32.31 deaths/1,000 live births.

In terms of health and welfare, 3.1 percent of GDP in this country is spent on education expenditures; 2.4 percent of GDP is spent on health expenditures. Generally, access to water in this country is good in urban areas and far more problematic in certain rural areas. Access to sanitation is more of a challenge, especially in rural areas.

In terms of literacy, the average literacy rate is 61 percent. This expressed rate, however, does not reflect the vast gender divide in regard to literacy in which only 47.8 percent of the female

India Review 2016 Page 273 of 408 pages India population over the age of 15 can read and write, as compared with 73.4 percent of the male population. Despite the average literacy rate, and in particular, the low literacy rate among females, there are segments of the Indian population which are highly educated, and there are certain cities, such as Bangalore and more recently, Kanpur, renowned as technological centers. This is a vivid example of the way in which India is often regarded as a country of contrasts.

One notable indicator used to measure a country's quality of life is the Human Development Index (HDI), which is compiled annually since 1990 by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The HDI is a composite of several indicators, which measure a country's achievements in three main arenas of human development: longevity, knowledge and education, as well as economic standard of living. In a recent ranking of 169 countries, the HDI placed India in the medium human development category, at 119th place.

Note: Although the concept of human development is complicated and cannot be properly captured by values and indices, the HDI, which is calculated and updated annually, offers a wide-ranging assessment of human development in certain countries, not based solely upon traditional economic and financial indicators.

Written by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, www.countrywatch.com . See Bibliography for list of research sources.

Human Development Index

Human Development Index

Human Development Index (Ranked Numerically)

The Human Development Index (HDI) is used to measure quality of life in countries across the world. The HDI has been compiled since 1990 by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on a regular basis. The HDI is a composite of several indicators, which measure a country's achievements in three main arenas of human development: longevity, education, and economic standard of living. Although the concept of human development is complicated and cannot be properly captured by values and indices, the HDI offers a wide-ranging assessment of human development in certain countries, not based solely upon traditional economic and financial indicators. For more information about the methodology used to calculate the HDI, please see the "Source Materials" in the appendices of this review.

India Review 2016 Page 274 of 408 pages India

Very High Human High Human Medium Human Low Human Development Development Development Development

1. Norway 43. Bahamas 86. Fiji 128. Kenya

2. Australia 44. Lithuania 87. Turkmenistan 129. Bangladesh

88. Dominican 3. New Zealand 45. Chile Republic 130. Ghana

4. United States 46. Argentina 89. China 131. Cameroon

132. Myanmar 5. Ireland 47. Kuwait 90. El Salvador (Burma)

6. Liechtenstein 48. Latvia 91. Sri Lanka 133. Yemen

7. Netherlands 49. Montenegro 92. Thailand 134. Benin

135. 8. Canada 50. Romania 93. Gabon Madagascar

9. Sweden 51. Croatia 94. Surname 136. Mauritania

137. Papua 10. Germany 52. Uruguay 95. Bolivia New Guinea

11. Japan 53. Libya 96. Paraguay 138. Nepal

12. South Korea 54. Panama 97. Philippines 139. Togo

13. Switzerland 55. Saudi Arabia 98. Botswana 140. Comoros

14. France 56. Mexico 99. Moldova 141. Lesotho

India Review 2016 Page 275 of 408 pages India

15. Israel 57. Malaysia 100. Mongolia 142. Nigeria

16. Finland 58. Bulgaria 101. Egypt 143. Uganda

17. Iceland 59. Trinidad and Tobago 102. Uzbekistan 144. Senegal

18. Belgium 60. Serbia 103. Micronesia 145. Haiti

19. Denmark 61. Belarus 104. Guyana 146. Angola

20. Spain 62. Costa Rica 105. Namibia 147. Djibouti

21. Hong King 63. Peru 106. Honduras 148. Tanzania

149. Cote 22. Greece 64. Albania 107. Maldives d'Ivoire

23. Italy 65. Russian Federation 108. Indonesia 150. Zambia

24. Luxembourg 66. Kazakhstan 109. Kyrgyzstan 151. Gambia

25. Austria 67. Azerbaijan 110. South Africa 152. Rwanda

26. United 68. Bosnia and Kingdom Herzegovina 111. Syria 153. Malawi

27. Singapore 69. Ukraine 112. Tajikistan 154. Sudan

28. Czech 155. Republic 70. Iran 113. Vietnam Afghanistan

71. The former Yugoslav 29. Slovenia Republic of Macedonia 114. Morocco 156. Guinea

30. Andorra 72. Mauritius 115. Nicaragua 157. Ethiopia

158. Sierra

India Review 2016 Page 276 of 408 pages India

31. Slovakia 73. Brazil 116. Guatemala Leone

159. Central 32. United Arab 117. Equatorial African Emirates 74. Georgia Guinea Republic

33. Malta 75. Venezuela 118. Cape Verde 160. Mali

161. Burkina 34. Estonia 76. Armenia 119. India Faso

35. Cyprus 77. Ecuador 120. East Timor 162. Liberia

36. Hungary 78. Belize 121. Swaziland 163. Chad

164. Guinea- 37. Brunei 79. Colombia 122. Laos Bissau

123. Solomon 165. 38. Qatar 80. Jamaica Islands Mozambique

39. Bahrain 81. Tunisia 124. Cambodia 166. Burundi

40. Portugal 82. Jordan 125. Pakistan 167. Niger

168. Congo 41. Poland 83. Turkey 126. Congo RC DRC

127. Sao Tome 42. Barbados 84. Algeria and Principe 169. Zimbabwe

85. Tonga

Methodology:

India Review 2016 Page 277 of 408 pages India

For more information about the methodology used to calculate the HDI, please see the "Source Materials" in the appendices of this Country Review.

Reference:

As published in United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report 2010.

Source:

United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Index available at URL: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Updated:

Uploaded in 2011 using ranking available; reviewed in 2015

Life Satisfaction Index

Life Satisfaction Index

Life Satisfaction Index

Created by Adrian G. White, an Analytic Social Psychologist at the University of Leicester, the "Satisfaction with Life Index" measures subjective life satisfaction across various countries. The data was taken from a metastudy (see below for source) and associates the notion of subjective happiness or life satisfaction with qualitative parameters such as health, wealth, and access to basic education. This assessment serves as an alternative to other measures of happiness that tend to rely on traditional and quantitative measures of policy on quality of life, such as GNP and GDP. The methodology involved the responses of 80,000 people across the globe.

Rank Country Score

1 Denmark 273.4

2 Switzerland 273.33

India Review 2016 Page 278 of 408 pages India

3 Austria 260

4 Iceland 260

5 The Bahamas 256.67

6 Finland 256.67

7 Sweden 256.67

8 Iran 253.33

9 Brunei 253.33

10 Canada 253.33

11 Ireland 253.33

12 Luxembourg 253.33

13 Costa Rica 250

14 Malta 250

15 Netherlands 250

16 Antiguaand Barbuda 246.67

17 Malaysia 246.67

18 New Zealand 246.67

19 Norway 246.67

20 Seychelles 246.67

India Review 2016 Page 279 of 408 pages India

21 Saint Kitts and Nevis 246.67

22 United Arab Emirates 246.67

23 United States 246.67

24 Vanuatu 246.67

25 Venezuela 246.67

26 Australia 243.33

27 Barbados 243.33

28 Belgium 243.33

29 Dominica 243.33

30 Oman 243.33

31 Saudi Arabia 243.33

32 Suriname 243.33

33 Bahrain 240

34 Colombia 240

35 Germany 240

36 Guyana 240

37 Honduras 240

38 Kuwait 240

India Review 2016 Page 280 of 408 pages India

39 Panama 240

40 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 240

41 United Kingdom 236.67

42 Dominican Republic 233.33

43 Guatemala 233.33

44 Jamaica 233.33

45 Qatar 233.33

46 Spain 233.33

47 Saint Lucia 233.33

48 Belize 230

49 Cyprus 230

50 Italy 230

51 Mexico 230

52 Samoa 230

53 Singapore 230

54 Solomon Islands 230

55 Trinidad and Tobago 230

56 Argentina 226.67

India Review 2016 Page 281 of 408 pages India

57 Fiji 223.33

58 Israel 223.33

59 Mongolia 223.33

60 São Tomé and Príncipe 223.33

61 El Salvador 220

62 France 220

63 Hong Kong 220

64 Indonesia 220

65 Kyrgyzstan 220

66 Maldives 220

67 Slovenia 220

68 Taiwan 220

69 East Timor 220

70 Tonga 220

71 Chile 216.67

72 Grenada 216.67

73 Mauritius 216.67

74 Namibia 216.67

India Review 2016 Page 282 of 408 pages India

75 Paraguay 216.67

76 Thailand 216.67

77 Czech Republic 213.33

78 Philippines 213.33

79 Tunisia 213.33

80 Uzbekistan 213.33

81 Brazil 210

82 China 210

83 Cuba 210

84 Greece 210

85 Nicaragua 210

86 Papua New Guinea 210

87 Uruguay 210

88 Gabon 206.67

89 Ghana 206.67

90 Japan 206.67

91 Yemen 206.67

92 Portugal 203.33

India Review 2016 Page 283 of 408 pages India

93 Sri Lanka 203.33

94 Tajikistan 203.33

95 Vietnam 203.33

96 Bhutan 200

97 Comoros 196.67

98 Croatia 196.67

99 Poland 196.67

100 Cape Verde 193.33

101 Kazakhstan 193.33

102 South Korea 193.33

103 Madagascar 193.33

104 Bangladesh 190

105 Republic of the Congo 190

106 The Gambia 190

107 Hungary 190

108 Libya 190

109 South Africa 190

110 Cambodia 186.67

India Review 2016 Page 284 of 408 pages India

111 Ecuador 186.67

112 Kenya 186.67

113 Lebanon 186.67

114 Morocco 186.67

115 Peru 186.67

116 Senegal 186.67

117 Bolivia 183.33

118 Haiti 183.33

119 Nepal 183.33

120 Nigeria 183.33

121 Tanzania 183.33

122 Benin 180

123 Botswana 180

124 Guinea-Bissau 180

125 India 180

126 Laos 180

127 Mozambique 180

128 Palestinian Authority 180

India Review 2016 Page 285 of 408 pages India

129 Slovakia 180

130 Myanmar 176.67

131 Mali 176.67

132 Mauritania 176.67

133 Turkey 176.67

134 Algeria 173.33

135 Equatorial Guinea 173.33

136 Romania 173.33

137 Bosnia and Herzegovina 170

138 Cameroon 170

139 Estonia 170

140 Guinea 170

141 Jordan 170

142 Syria 170

143 Sierra Leone 166.67

144 Azerbaijan 163.33

145 Central African Republic 163.33

146 Republic of Macedonia 163.33

147 Togo 163.33 India Review 2016 Page 286 of 408 pages India

147 Togo 163.33

148 Zambia 163.33

149 Angola 160

150 Djibouti 160

151 Egypt 160

152 Burkina Faso 156.67

153 Ethiopia 156.67

154 Latvia 156.67

155 Lithuania 156.67

156 Uganda 156.67

157 Albania 153.33

158 Malawi 153.33

159 Chad 150

160 Côte d'Ivoire 150

161 Niger 150

162 Eritrea 146.67

163 Rwanda 146.67

164 Bulgaria 143.33

India Review 2016 Page 287 of 408 pages India

165 Lesotho 143.33

166 Pakistan 143.33

167 Russia 143.33

168 Swaziland 140

169 Georgia 136.67

170 Belarus 133.33

171 Turkmenistan 133.33

172 Armenia 123.33

173 Sudan 120

174 Ukraine 120

175 Moldova 116.67

176 Democratic Republic of the Congo 110

177 Zimbabwe 110

178 Burundi 100

Commentary:

European countries, such as Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria resided at the top of the ranking with highest levels of self-reported life satisfaction. Conversely, European countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine ranked low on the index. African countries such as Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe and Burundi found themselves at the very bottom of the ranking, and indeed, very few African countries could be

India Review 2016 Page 288 of 408 pages India found in the top 100. Japan was at the mid-way point in the ranking, however, other Asian countries such as Brunei and Malaysia were in the top tier, while Pakistan was close to the bottom with a low level of self-identified life satisfaction. As a region, the Middle East presented a mixed bad with Saudi Arabians reporing healthy levels of life satisfaction and Egyptians near the bottom of the ranking. As a region, Caribbean countries were ranked highly, consistently demonstrating high levels of life satisfaction. The findings showed that health was the most crucial determining factor in life satisfaction, followed by prosperity and education.

Source:

White, A. (2007). A Global Projection of Subjective Well-being: A Challenge To Positive Psychology? Psychtalk 56, 17-20. The data was extracted from a meta-analysis by Marks, Abdallah, Simms & Thompson (2006).

Uploaded:

Based on study noted above in "Source" ; reviewed in 2015

Happy Planet Index

Happy Planet Index

The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is used to measure human well-being in conjunction with environmental impact. The HPI has been compiled since 2006 by the New Economics Foundation. The index is a composite of several indicators including subjective life satisfaction, life expectancy at birth, and ecological footprint per capita.

As noted by NEFA, the HPI "reveals the ecological efficiency with which human well-being is delivered." Indeed, the index combines environmental impact with human well-being to measure the environmental efficiency with which, country by country, people live long and happy lives. The countries ranked highest by the HPI are not necessarily the ones with the happiest people overall, but the ones that allow their citizens to live long and fulfilling lives, without negatively impacting this opportunity for either future generations or citizens of other countries. Accordingly, a country like the United States will rank low on this list due to its large per capital ecological footprint, which uses more than its fair share of resources, and will likely cause planetary damage.

India Review 2016 Page 289 of 408 pages India

It should be noted that the HPI was designed to be a counterpoint to other well-established indices of countries' development, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which measures overall national wealth and economic development, but often obfuscates the realities of countries with stark variances between the rich and the poor. Moreover, the objective of most of the world's people is not to be wealthy but to be happy. The HPI also differs from the Human Development Index (HDI), which measures quality of life but not ecology, since it [HPI] also includes sustainability as a key indicator.

Rank Country HPI

1 Costa Rica 76.1

2 Dominican Republic 71.8

3 Jamaica 70.1

4 Guatemala 68.4

5 Vietnam 66.5

6 Colombia 66.1

7 Cuba 65.7

8 El Salvador 61.5

9 Brazil 61.0

10 Honduras 61.0

11 Nicaragua 60.5

12 Egypt 60.3

India Review 2016 Page 290 of 408 pages India

13 Saudi Arabia 59.7

14 Philippines 59.0

15 Argentina 59.0

16 Indonesia 58.9

17 Bhutan 58.5

18 Panama 57.4

19 Laos 57.3

20 China 57.1

21 Morocco 56.8

22 Sri Lanka 56.5

23 Mexico 55.6

24 Pakistan 55.6

25 Ecuador 55.5

26 Jordan 54.6

27 Belize 54.5

28 Peru 54.4

29 Tunisia 54.3

30 Trinidad and Tobago 54.2

India Review 2016 Page 291 of 408 pages India

31 Bangladesh 54.1

32 Moldova 54.1

33 Malaysia 54.0

34 Tajikistan 53.5

35 India 53.0

36 Venezuela 52.5

37 Nepal 51.9

38 Syria 51.3

39 Burma 51.2

40 Algeria 51.2

41 Thailand 50.9

42 Haiti 50.8

43 Netherlands 50.6

44 Malta 50.4

45 Uzbekistan 50.1

46 Chile 49.7

47 Bolivia 49.3

48 Armenia 48.3

India Review 2016 Page 292 of 408 pages India

49 Singapore 48.2

50 Yemen 48.1

51 Germany 48.1

52 Switzerland 48.1

53 Sweden 48.0

54 Albania 47.9

55 Paraguay 47.8

56 Palestinian Authority 47.7

57 Austria 47.7

58 Serbia 47.6

59 Finland 47.2

60 Croatia 47.2

61 Kyrgyzstan 47.1

62 Cyprus 46.2

63 Guyana 45.6

64 Belgium 45.4

65 Bosnia and Herzegovina 45.0

66 Slovenia 44.5

67 Israel 44.5 India Review 2016 Page 293 of 408 pages India

67 Israel 44.5

68 South Korea 44.4

69 Italy 44.0

70 Romania 43.9

71 France 43.9

72 Georgia 43.6

73 Slovakia 43.5

74 United Kingdom 43.3

75 Japan 43.3

76 Spain 43.2

77 Poland 42.8

78 Ireland 42.6

79 Iraq 42.6

80 Cambodia 42.3

81 Iran 42.1

82 Bulgaria 42.0

83 Turkey 41.7

84 Hong Kong 41.6

India Review 2016 Page 294 of 408 pages India

85 Azerbaijan 41.2

86 Lithuania 40.9

87 Djibouti 40.4

88 Norway 40.4

89 Canada 39.4

90 Hungary 38.9

91 Kazakhstan 38.5

92 Czech Republic 38.3

93 Mauritania 38.2

94 Iceland 38.1

95 Ukraine 38.1

96 Senegal 38.0

97 Greece 37.6

98 Portugal 37.5

99 Uruguay 37.2

100 Ghana 37.1

101 Latvia 36.7

102 Australia 36.6

India Review 2016 Page 295 of 408 pages India

103 New Zealand 36.2

104 Belarus 35.7

105 Denmark 35.5

106 Mongolia 35.0

107 Malawi 34.5

108 Russia 34.5

109 Chad 34.3

110 Lebanon 33.6

111 Macedonia 32.7

112 Republic of the Congo 32.4

113 Madagascar 31.5

114 United States 30.7

115 Nigeria 30.3

116 Guinea 30.3

117 Uganda 30.2

118 South Africa 29.7

119 Rwanda 29.6

120 Democratic Republic of the Congo 29.0

India Review 2016 Page 296 of 408 pages India

121 Sudan 28.5

122 Luxembourg 28.5

123 United Arab Emirates 28.2

124 Ethiopia 28.1

125 Kenya 27.8

126 Cameroon 27.2

127 Zambia 27.2

128 Kuwait 27.0

129 Niger 26.9

130 Angola 26.8

131 Estonia 26.4

132 Mali 25.8

133 Mozambique 24.6

134 Benin 24.6

135 Togo 23.3

136 Sierra Leone 23.1

137 Central African Republic 22.9

138 Burkina Faso 22.4

India Review 2016 Page 297 of 408 pages India

139 Burundi 21.8

140 Namibia 21.1

141 Botswana 20.9

142 Tanzania 17.8

143 Zimbabwe 16.6

Source: This material is derived from the Happy Planet Index issued by the New Economics Foundation (NEF).

Methodology: The methodology for the calculations can be found at URL: http://www.happyplanetindex.org/

Status of Women

Overview

India is the world’s second most populous nation; however, it has only 2.4 percent of the world’s land. This situation creates great pressure on its natural resources, which has an impact on the economic status of the people in India, and their standard of living. The impact on women is particularly pronounced.

Females in India have less access to healthcare than males. Many also have severe health issues due to harsh working conditions, malnutrition and/or environmental pollution. Many women in India also live beneath the poverty line.

Women in India often work longer hours than males for less money; however, most of the time their work is not recognized by society. Males in India are often quoted as saying, “women, like

India Review 2016 Page 298 of 408 pages India children, eat and do nothing.” Women are seen as a liability in Indian society and are often treated as such.

While women are guaranteed equity under the laws of the land, in practice, this is not always the case. Many women lack the power to decide whom they will marry, where they will work, and often if they will be able to pursue higher education.

In recent years, there has been a rising number of violent incidences against women, in terms of rapes, assaults, and even dowry-related murders. Fear of violence and harassment serves to suppress the voice of women in society. Female infanticide is an additional form of violence that reflects the continuing devaluation of women in Indian society.

That said, measures are underway to put more power in the hands of women. For example, in recent years, a quota was put in place to set aside a minimal number of seats tp be occupied by women in parliament. There is also a National Human Rights Commission for Women that handles all reported incidences of violence against women and a National Council for Women that advocates policies on their behalf. India has also enjoyed the leadership of a female prime minister -- Indira Gandhi, as well as a female head of one of its main political parties -- Sonia Gandhi.

Gender Related Development Index (GDI) Rank:

98th out of 140

Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) Rank:

Not Ranked

Female Population:

531.9 million

Female Life Expectancy at birth:

71.9 years

Total Fertility Rate:

3.1

Maternal Mortality Ratio:

540

India Review 2016 Page 299 of 408 pages India

Total Number of Women Living with HIV/AIDS:

820,000-2.8 million

Ever Married Women, Ages 15-19 (%):

30%

Mean Age at Time of Marriage:

20

Contraceptive Use Among Married Women, Any Method (%):

48%

Female Adult Literacy Rate:

47.8%

Combined Female Gross enrollment ratio for Primary, Secondary and Tertiary schools:

56%

Female-Headed Households (%):

10%

Economically Active Females (%):

42.5%

Female Contributing Family Workers (%):

N/A

Female Estimated Earned Income:

$1,569

Seats in Parliament held by women (%):

India Review 2016 Page 300 of 408 pages India

Lower or Single House: 8.3% Upper House or Senate: 11.6%

Year Women Received the Right to Vote:

1950

Year Women Received the Right to Stand for Election:

1950

*The Gender Development Index (GDI) is a composite index which measures the average achievement in a country. While very similar to the Human Development Index in its use of the same variables, the GDI adjusts the average achievement of each country in terms of life expectancy, enrollment in schools, income, and literacy in accordance to the disparities between males and females.

*The Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) is a composite index measuring gender inequality in three of the basic dimensions of empowerment; economic participation and decision-making, political participation and decision-making, and power over economic resources.

*Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is defined as the average number of babies born to women during their reproductive years. A TFR of 2.1 is considered the replacement rate; once a TFR of a population reaches 2.1 the population will remain stable assuming no immigration or emigration takes place. When the TFR is greater than 2.1 a population will increase and when it is less than 2.1 a population will eventually decrease, although due to the age structure of a population it will take years before a low TFR is translated into lower population.

*Maternal Mortality Rate is the number of deaths to women per 100,000 live births that resulted from conditions related to pregnancy and or delivery related complications.

*Economically Active Females are the share of the female population, ages 15 and above, whom supply, or are able to supply, labor for the production of goods and services.

*Female Contributing Family Workers are those females who work without pay in an economic enterprise operated by a relative living in the same household.

*Estimated Earned Income is measured according to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) in US dollars.

India Review 2016 Page 301 of 408 pages India

Global Gender Gap Index

Global Gender Gap Index

Editor's Note:

The Global Gender Gap Index by the World Economic Forum ranks most of the world’s countries in terms of the division of resources and opportunities among males and females. Specifically, the ranking assesses the gender inequality gap in these four arenas:

1. Economic participation and opportunity (salaries and high skilled employment participation levels) 2. Educational attainment (access to basic and higher level education) 3. Political empowerment (representation in decision-making structures) 4. Health and survival (life expectancy and sex ratio)

2010 rank 2010 2010 2009 2009 2008 2008 2007 among rank score rank score rank score rank 2009 countries

Country

Iceland 1 0.8496 1 1 0.8276 4 0.7999 4

Norway 2 0.8404 2 3 0.8227 1 0.8239 2

Finland 3 0.8260 3 2 0.8252 2 0.8195 3

Sweden 4 0.8024 4 4 0.8139 3 0.8139 1

New 5 0.7808 5 5 0.7880 5 0.7859 5 Zealand

India Review 2016 Page 302 of 408 pages India

Ireland 6 0.7773 6 8 0.7597 8 0.7518 9

Denmark 7 0.7719 7 7 0.7628 7 0.7538 8

Lesotho 8 0.7678 8 10 0.7495 16 0.7320 26

Philippines 9 0.7654 9 9 0.7579 6 0.7568 6

Switzerland 10 0.7562 10 13 0.7426 14 0.7360 40

Spain 11 0.7554 11 17 0.7345 17 0.7281 10

South Africa 12 0.7535 12 6 0.7709 22 0.7232 20

Germany 13 0.7530 13 12 0.7449 11 0.7394 7

Belgium 14 0.7509 14 33 0.7165 28 0.7163 19

United 15 0.7460 15 15 0.7402 13 0.7366 11 Kingdom

Sri Lanka 16 0.7458 16 16 0.7402 12 0.7371 15

Netherlands 17 0.7444 17 11 0.7490 9 0.7399 12

Latvia 18 0.7429 18 14 0.7416 10 0.7397 13

United 19 0.7411 19 31 0.7173 27 0.7179 31 States

Canada 20 0.7372 20 25 0.7196 31 0.7136 18

Trinidad and 21 0.7353 21 19 0.7298 19 0.7245 46 Tobago

Mozambique 22 0.7329 22 26 0.7195 18 0.7266 43

India Review 2016 Page 303 of 408 pages India

Australia 23 0.7271 23 20 0.7282 21 0.7241 17

Cuba 24 0.7253 24 29 0.7176 25 0.7195 22

Namibia 25 0.7238 25 32 0.7167 30 0.7141 29

Luxembourg 26 0.7231 26 63 0.6889 66 0.6802 58

Mongolia 27 0.7194 27 22 0.7221 40 0.7049 62

Costa Rica 28 0.7194 28 27 0.7180 32 0.7111 28

Argentina 29 0.7187 29 24 0.7211 24 0.7209 33

Nicaragua 30 0.7176 30 49 0.7002 71 0.6747 90

Barbados 31 0.7176 31 21 0.7236 26 0.7188 n/a

Portugal 32 0.7171 32 46 0.7013 39 0.7051 37

Uganda 33 0.7169 33 40 0.7067 43 0.6981 50

Moldova 34 0.7160 34 36 0.7104 20 0.7244 21

Lithuania 35 0.7132 35 30 0.7175 23 0.7222 14

Bahamas 36 0.7128 36 28 0.7179 n/a n/a n/a

Austria 37 0.7091 37 42 0.7031 29 0.7153 27

Guyana 38 0.7090 38 35 0.7108 n/a n/a n/a

Panama 39 0.7072 39 43 0.7024 34 0.7095 38

Ecuador 40 0.7072 40 23 0.7220 35 0.7091 44

India Review 2016 Page 304 of 408 pages India

Kazakhstan 41 0.7055 41 47 0.7013 45 0.6976 32

Slovenia 42 0.7047 42 52 0.6982 51 0.6937 49

Poland 43 0.7037 43 50 0.6998 49 0.6951 60

Jamaica 44 0.7037 44 48 0.7013 44 0.6980 39

Russian 45 0.7036 45 51 0.6987 42 0.6994 45 Federation

France 46 0.7025 46 18 0.7331 15 0.7341 51

Estonia 47 0.7018 47 37 0.7094 37 0.7076 30

Chile 48 0.7013 48 64 0.6884 65 0.6818 86

Macedonia, 49 0.6996 49 53 0.6950 53 0.6914 35 FYR

Bulgaria 50 0.6983 50 38 0.7072 36 0.7077 25

Kyrgyz 51 0.6973 51 41 0.7058 41 0.7045 70 Republic

Israel 52 0.6957 52 45 0.7019 56 0.6900 36

Croatia 53 0.6939 53 54 0.6944 46 0.6967 16

Honduras 54 0.6927 54 62 0.6893 47 0.6960 68

Colombia 55 0.6927 55 56 0.6939 50 0.6944 24

Singapore 56 0.6914 56 84 0.6664 84 0.6625 77

Thailand 57 0.6910 57 59 0.6907 52 0.6917 52

India Review 2016 Page 305 of 408 pages India

Greece 58 0.6908 58 85 0.6662 75 0.6727 72

Uruguay 59 0.6897 59 57 0.6936 54 0.6907 78

Peru 60 0.6895 60 44 0.7024 48 0.6959 75

China 61 0.6881 61 60 0.6907 57 0.6878 73

Botswana 62 0.6876 62 39 0.7071 63 0.6839 53

Ukraine 63 0.6869 63 61 0.6896 62 0.6856 57

Venezuela 64 0.6863 64 69 0.6839 59 0.6875 55

Czech 65 0.6850 65 74 0.6789 69 0.6770 64 Republic

Tanzania 66 0.6829 66 73 0.6797 38 0.7068 34

Romania 67 0.6826 67 70 0.6805 70 0.6763 47

Malawi 68 0.6824 68 76 0.6738 81 0.6664 87

Paraguay 69 0.6804 69 66 0.6868 100 0.6379 69

Ghana 70 0.6782 70 80 0.6704 77 0.6679 63

Slovak 71 0.6778 71 68 0.6845 64 0.6824 54 Republic

Vietnam 72 0.6776 72 71 0.6802 68 0.6778 42

Dominican 73 0.6774 73 67 0.6859 72 0.6744 65 Republic

Italy 74 0.6765 74 72 0.6798 67 0.6788 84

India Review 2016 Page 306 of 408 pages India

Gambia, 75 0.6762 75 75 0.6752 85 0.6622 95 The

Bolivia 76 0.6751 76 82 0.6693 80 0.6667 80

Brueni 77 0.6748 77 94 0.6524 99 0.6392 n/a Darussalem

Albania 78 0.6726 78 91 0.6601 87 0.6591 66

Hungary 79 0.6720 79 65 0.6879 60 0.6867 61

Madagascar 80 0.6713 80 77 0.6732 74 0.6736 89

Angola 81 0.6712 81 106 0.6353 114 0.6032 110

Bangladesh 82 0.6702 82 93 0.6526 90 0.6531 100

Malta 83 0.6695 83 88 0.6635 83 0.6634 76

Armenia 84 0.6669 84 90 0.6619 78 0.6677 71

Brazil 85 0.6655 85 81 0.6695 73 0.6737 74

Cyprus 86 0.6642 86 79 0.6706 76 0.6694 82

Indonesia 87 0.6615 87 92 0.6580 93 0.6473 81

Georgia 88 0.6598 88 83 0.6680 82 0.6654 67

Tajikistan 89 0.6598 89 86 0.6661 89 0.6541 79

El Salvador 90 0.6596 90 55 0.6939 58 0.6875 48

Mexico 91 0.6577 91 98 0.6503 97 0.6441 93

India Review 2016 Page 307 of 408 pages India

Zimbabwe 92 0.6574 92 95 0.6518 92 0.6485 88

Belize 93 0.6536 93 87 0.6636 86 0.6610 94

Japan 94 0.6524 94 101 0.6447 98 0.6434 91

Mauritius 95 0.6520 95 96 0.6513 95 0.6466 85

Kenya 96 0.6499 96 97 0.6512 88 0.6547 83

Cambodia 97 0.6482 97 104 0.6410 94 0.6469 98

Malaysia 98 0.6479 98 100 0.6467 96 0.6442 92

Maldives 99 0.6452 99 99 0.6482 91 0.6501 99

Azerbaijan 100 0.6446 100 89 0.6626 61 0.6856 59

Senegal 101 0.6414 101 102 0.6427 n/a n/a n/a

Suriname 102 0.6407 102 78 0.6726 79 0.6674 56

United Arab 103 0.6397 103 112 0.6198 105 0.6220 105 Emirates

Korea, Rep. 104 0.6342 104 115 0.6146 108 0.6154 97

Kuwait 105 0.6318 105 105 0.6356 101 0.6358 96

Zambia 106 0.6293 106 107 0.6310 106 0.6205 101

Tunisia 107 0.6266 107 109 0.6233 103 0.6295 102

Fiji 108 0.6256 108 103 0.6414 n/a n/a n/a

Guatemala 109 0.6238 109 111 0.6209 112 0.6072 106

India Review 2016 Page 308 of 408 pages India

Bahrain 110 0.6217 110 116 0.6136 121 0.5927 115

Burkina 111 0.6162 111 120 0.6081 115 0.6029 117 Faso

India 112 0.6155 112 114 0.6151 113 0.6060 114

Mauritania 113 0.6152 113 119 0.6103 110 0.6117 111

Cameroon 114 0.6110 114 118 0.6108 117 0.6017 116

Nepal 115 0.6084 115 110 0.6213 120 0.5942 125

Lebanon* 116 0.6084 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Qatar 117 0.6059 116 125 0.5907 119 0.5948 109

Nigeria 118 0.6055 117 108 0.6280 102 0.6339 107

Algeria 119 0.6052 118 117 0.6119 111 0.6111 108

Jordan 120 0.6048 119 113 0.6182 104 0.6275 104

Ethiopia 121 0.6019 120 122 0.5948 122 0.5867 113

Oman 122 0.5950 121 123 0.5938 118 0.5960 119

Iran 123 0.5933 122 128 0.5839 116 0.6021 118

Syria 124 0.5926 123 121 0.6072 107 0.6181 103

Egypt 125 0.5899 124 126 0.5862 124 0.5832 120

Turkey 126 0.5876 125 129 0.5828 123 0.5853 121

Morocco 127 0.5767 126 124 0.5926 125 0.5757 122

India Review 2016 Page 309 of 408 pages India

Benin 128 0.5719 127 131 0.5643 126 0.5582 123

Saudi Arabia 129 0.5713 128 130 0.5651 128 0.5537 124

Côte 130 0.5691 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a d'Ivoire*

Mali 131 0.5680 129 127 0.5860 109 0.6117 112

Pakistan 132 0.5465 130 132 0.5458 127 0.5549 126

Chad 133 0.5330 131 133 0.5417 129 0.5290 127

Yemen 134 0.4603 132 134 0.4609 130 0.4664 128

Belarus n/a n/a n/a 34 0.7141 33 0.7099 23

Uzbekistan n/a n/a n/a 58 0.6913 55 0.6906 41

*new country 2010

Commentary:

According to the report’s index, Nordic countries, such as Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden have continued to dominate at the top of the ranking for gender equality. Meanwhile, France has seen a notable decline in the ranking, largely as a result of decreased number of women holding ministerial portfolios in that country. In the Americas, the United States has risen in the ranking to top the region, predominantly as a result of a decreasing wage gap, as well as higher number of women holding key positions in the current Obama administration. Canada has continued to remain as one of the top ranking countries of the Americas, followed by the small Caribbean island nation of Trinidad and Tobago, which has the distinction of being among the top three countries of the Americans in the realm of gender equality. Lesotho and South African ranked highly in the

India Review 2016 Page 310 of 408 pages India index, leading not only among African countries but also in global context. Despite Lesotho still lagging in the area of life expectancy, its high ranking was attributed to high levels of female participation in the labor force and female literacy. The Philippines and Sri Lanka were the top ranking countries for gender equality for Asia, ranking highly also in global context. The Philippines has continued to show strong performance in all strong performance on all four dimensions (detailed above) of the index. Finally, in the Arab world, the United Arab Emirates held the highest-rank within that region of the world; however, its placement near the bottom of the global list highlights the fact that Arab countries are generally poor performers when it comes to the matter of gender equality in global scope.

Source:

This data is derived from the latest edition of The Global Gender Gap Report by the World Economic Forum.

Available at URL: http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Women%20Leaders%20and%20Gender%20Parity/GenderGapNetwork/index.htm

Updated:

Based on latest available data as set forth in chart; reviewed in 2014

Culture and Arts

Content to come!

Etiquette

Cultural Dos and Taboos

1. India is home to many religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Jainism,

India Review 2016 Page 311 of 408 pages India

Zoroastrianism and Sikhism, to name a few). There are also sixteen recognized languages in India, as well as hundreds of linguistic dialects. Ethnically, there are also differences between Indians from east to west, and north to south. Visitors to India should expect a varied and vibrant mélange of cultures and traditions in this country, as well as the requisite cultural and social sensitivities that are associated with such diversity.

2. In large cities, Indian men and women who subscribe to more Westernized habits and tendencies will offer to shake hands when greeting others. Nevertheless, foreign women should avoid initiating handshakes with Indian men. Generally, speaking, Hindu Indians avoid public contact between men and women; only Westernized Hindus will shake hands with the opposite sex. Traditionally there is no physical contact between Muslim men and women. Indians, regardless of religious affiliations, tend to disapprove of public displays of affection between the opposite sex.. One should avoid touching, (except the specific cases of handshaking noted above), hugging, or kissing when greeting another person.

3. Titles are highly valued in India and adhering to the strictures of formality is highly advisable. One should always use professional titles and avoid addressing another by his or her first name unless one is asked to do so, or one is a close friend.

4. The traditional greeting is the namaste. Namaste is offered by holding the palms of the hands together below the chin, nodding or bowing slightly, and saying the word, "namaste." Rough translation of the word suggests that it conveys peace, respect and hospitality from one person to another. Literally, it means something akin to "I bow to the divine in you." This soulful and lyrical greeting is useful for foreigners in any situation where a handshake may not be acceptable.

5. Many Indians consider the head to be the seat of the soul. One should avoid touching someone else's head. Simply patting the hair of a child may seem to be a harmless and affectionate act in Western culture, but it may not be so well-received in India.

6. One should also avoid standing with one's hands on one's hips, as this stance may well be interpreted as an angry, aggressive posture.

7. One should eschew pointing with a finger, as it is considered to be an offensive gesture, sometimes denoting annoyance. Indeed, Indians often point with the chin.

8. One should also eschew winking with the eyes. Winking may be misinterpreted as either an insult or a sexual proposition.

9. The protocol surrounding one's feet should also be noted. For example, one should not point one's feet at another person. Also, feet are considered unclean, so if one's shoes or feet touch another person's shoes or feet, one should be sure to apologize. Upon entering someone's house,

India Review 2016 Page 312 of 408 pages India one would normally remove one's shoes unless invited to do otherwise; again, this custom is associated with notions of cleanliness in regard to the feet.

10. Visitors to India should note that the gestures for "yes" and "no" mean something other than the Western connotation. This difference can be confusing in cross-cultural communication. Indians swivel their heads from side to side for both affirmative abd negative responses (this is basically a combination of both of the North American head movements for "yes" and "no"). One should try to procure a verbal response to questions, in order to avoid miscommunication.

11. Note that the implications of the word "no" in India are very significant. Among Indians, evasive refusals, rather than outright negations, and are considered to be preferable. When one is offered an invitation, for example, one would respond with vague avoidances, such as "maybe, we'll see" or "I'll try." Visitors should emulate these muted refusals in situations with locals where an outright "no" would normally suffice.

12. Many travel experts suggest that while offers to visit someone's home may be presented, in India, it is advisable that one only accept such offers from trusted friends and acquaintances in India. Although Indians are very hospitable people, caution should be exercised until one has gained some experience with the people and culture of India.

13. Once one has determined that a visit to an Indian home is acceptable, one should take a small gift for the host and/or the hostess. Chocolates, candy or flowers are all suggested choices, although frangipani blossoms should be avoided, as they are associated with funerals. An ornament from one's home would be considered to be a lovely choice. Whatever gift is selected, it should not be wrapped in black or white, which are considered to be unlucky colors. Green, red or yellow wrapping are better choices. One should also note that gifts are not normally opened in the presence of the giver. If one receives a wrapped gift, one should set it aside until the giver leaves. Sending a note of thanks for the gift, once it has been opened, is also good protocol. Remember that Hindus do not eat beef and Muslims do not eat pork. Gifts of leather made from cows, as well as pigskins (footballs), are not appropriate within these two respective communities.

14. When visiting someone's home, if refreshments are offered, it is customary to refuse the first offer, but to accept on the second or third offering. Refusal of any refreshment is regarded as rude and ungracious.

15. In Muslim homes, note that one should eat with the right hand; the left hand is considered unclean. Simply touching a communal dish with the left hand may cause fellow diners to avoid it.

16. Eating from another person's plate is inappropriate. One should never offer another person (even a spouse) food from one's own plate, or alternatively, eat from another's plate.

India Review 2016 Page 313 of 408 pages India

17. At the end of a meal, do not thank the host as the words, "thank you," may be viewed as a form of payment. The sharing of a meal is considered to be akin to sharing a friendship and is deeply meaningful among Indians. Returning the meal by inviting the host to dinner or an equivalent meal shows that one values the relationship. One might also show appreciation for the meal by complimenting the food, and by partaking of second or even third helpings, when offered. Mentioning how kind and hospitable the host has been would also be appropriate.

18. When traveling in India, it is best to convey the image of quiet confidence and to act as if one knows the country and the region. Appearing confused or lost can make one the object of foul play. Women should take care not to travel alone, especially in less populated areas, and should avoid walking around town at odd times. When one is confronted by the poor and destitute, even though it may one's natural impulse to respond charitably, most travel experts suggest that such persons not be encouraged. As is the case when traveling in many developing countries, one should also be cautious about water and food contamination.

19. When shopping for antiques In India, one should avoid purchasing goods older than 100 years old. Many good, such as "shahtoosh" shawls and ivory, are illegal to either purchase or sell. Make a point of learning what kind of antiques and cultural crafts may be legally and safely bought in India, with full systemic transparency. One should also avail one's self of the customary bargaining practices, while simultaneously employing transparency throughout the entire transaction.

20. When visiting temples and other holy sites, note that it is often prohibited to take photographs of deities. Be sure to procure permission before doing so.

21. Likewise, one should not photograph women without prior permission.

22. Travel experts suggest that one should only visit sacred sites and spaces which are well- publicized, and that are sanctioned by governmental bodies. Sites that encourage social injustice and inhumane practices should be avoided, according to the experts. Visiting "sati" temples - where women are thrown onto their husbands' funeral pyres - are examples of such ill-recommended sites.

23. It is customary to remove one's shoes before entering a home (as noted above) or place of worship. Be sure to adhere to these rules of convention when one visits a home or place of worship (including temples, tombs, dargahs). Likewise, one should be sure to cover one's head in scared spaces. Usually, a cloth of some kind will suffice, although the Hindu veil is commonplace among women.

24. Because cows are considered to be sacred creatures by Hindus, one should not wear leather products in Hindu temples and at other sites considered to be sacred among Hindus.

India Review 2016 Page 314 of 408 pages India

25. Modest clothing is also advisable when visiting holy sites, while clothing in the color of black should be avoided in Jain temples. Indeed, conservative dress at all times is imperative in India. Cottons and silks in light colors are popular and comfortable fabrics, and are suitable for the hot climate that pervades much of India. Indian men tend to wear "kurtas" (tunic-like shirts) over loose "dhotis" and "loongis" (loose pajama-like pants), while Indian women tend to wear "saris" (elaborate draped dresses made of several yards of material). "Saris" can range from simple cotton fabrics, to more colorful silks and satins designed with detailed embroidery and threadwork in gold as well as silver. Among business people, however, it is common for Indians to wear Western suits and garb as well as the traditional fare. Visitors can stick to Western clothing styles or dress like a local, the only requisite element is that modesty be employed.

Travel Information

Please Note

This is a generalized travel guide and it is intended to coalesce several resources, which a traveler might find useful, regardless of a particular destination. As such, it does not include travel warnings for specific "hot spot" destinations.

For travel alerts and warnings, please see the United States Department of State's listings available at URL: http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings.html

Please note that travel to the following countries, based on these warnings, is ill-advised, or should be undertaken with the utmost precaution:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Honduras, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Niger,

India Review 2016 Page 315 of 408 pages India

Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Palestinian Territories of West Bank and Gaza, Philippines areas of Sulu Archipelago, Mindanao, and southern Sulu Sea, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen.

International Travel Guide

Checklist for Travelers

1. Take out travel insurance to cover hospital treatment or medical evacuation. Overseas medical costs are expensive to most international travelers, where one's domestic, nationalized or even private health insurance plans will not provide coverage outside one's home country. Learn about "reciprocal insurance plans" that some international health care companies might offer.

2. Make sure that one's travel insurance is appropriate. If one intends to indulge in adventurous activities, such as parasailing, one should be sure that one is fully insured in such cases. Many traditional insurance policies do not provide coverage in cases of extreme circumstances.

3. Take time to learn about one's destination country and culture. Read and learn about the place one is traveling. Also check political, economic and socio-cultural developments at the destination by reading country-specific travel reports and fact sheets noted below.

4. Get the necessary visas for the country (or countries) one intends to visit - but be aware that a visa does not guarantee entry. A number of useful sites regarding visa and other entry requirements are noted below.

5. Keep in regular contact with friends and relatives back at home by phone or email, and be sure to leave a travel itinerary.

6. Protect one's personal information by making copies of one's passport details, insurance policy, travelers checks and credit card numbers. Taking copies of such documents with you, while leaving another collection copies with someone at home is also good practice for travelers. Taking copies of one's passport photograph is also recommended.

7. Stay healthy by taking all possible precautions against illness. Also, be sure to take extra supplies of prescription drugs along for the trip, while also taking time to pack general pharmaceutical supplies, such as aspirin and other such painkillers, bandages, stomach ailment medication, anti- inflammatory medication and anti-bacterial medication.

8. Do not carry illicit drugs. Understand that the punishment for possession or use of illegal drugs

India Review 2016 Page 316 of 408 pages India in some countries may be capital punishment. Make sure your prescription drugs are legal in the countries you plan to visit.

9. Know the laws of one's destination country and culture; be sure to understand the repercussions of breaking those laws and regulations. Often the transparency and freedoms of the juridical system at home is not consistent with that of one's destination country. Become aware of these complexities and subtleties before you travel.

10. For longer stays in a country, or where the security situation is volatile, one should register one's self and traveling companions at the local embassy or consulate of one's country of citizenship.

11. Women should take care to be prepared both culturally and practically for traveling in a different country and culture. One should be sure to take sufficient supplies of personal feminine products and prescription drugs. One should also learn about local cultural standards for women, including norms of dressing. Be aware that it is simply inappropriate and unsafe for women to travel alone in some countries, and take the necessary precautions to avoid risk-filled situations.

12. If one is traveling with small children, one should pack extra supplies, make arrangements with the travel carrier for proper seating that would adequately accommodate children, infants or toddlers. Note also that whether one is male of female, traveling with children means that one's hands are thus not free to carry luggage and bags. Be especially aware that this makes one vulnerable to pickpockets, thieves and other sorts of crime.

13. Make proper arrangements for accommodations, well in advance of one's arrival at a destination. Some countries have limited accommodation, while others may have culturally distinctive facilities. Learning about these practicalities before one travels will greatly aid the enjoyment of one's trip.

14. Travel with different forms of currency and money (cash, traveler's checks and credit cards) in anticipation that venues may not accept one or another form of money. Also, ensuring that one's financial resources are not contained in one location, or by one person (if one is traveling with others) can be a useful measure, in the event that one loses a wallet or purse.

15. Find out about transportation in the destination country. In some places, it might be advisable to hire a local driver or taxi guide for safety reasons, while in other countries, enjoying one's travel experience may well be enhanced by renting a vehicle and seeing the local sights and culture independently. Costs may also be prohibitive for either of these choices, so again, prior planning is suggested.

India Review 2016 Page 317 of 408 pages India

Tips for Travelers

• Check with your embassy, consulate, or appropriate government institution related to travel before traveling.

• Visas. Most foreign nationals require visas for India. If you arrive without a visa you can expect to be sent back. Multiple visas have restrictions. Check the details and always check with the issuing authority that your visa is valid for when you intend to travel. Many people are caught out by misreading their visas. If you intend to take side trips out of India, say to Nepal, then return. Make sure you have a double, triple or multiple visa according to your needs. Don't overstay the time limit on your stay in India or you could go to jail or face a fine.

• Book a hotel room prior to arrival. Tourists are advised to book at least their first night's accommodation before arrival in India. Those without somewhere to stay can fall prey to rogue taxi and rickshaw drivers who offer to take them to a hotel. Unwitting victims have been attacked and robbed.

• Keep your money and passport in a safe place. The theft of passports and other belongings is on the increase. Replacing a passport will take time and money. Organized gangs of thieves work the trains on tourist routes. Keep your passport, money and valuables on you and not in your hand baggage. Do take particular care of your belongings whilst boarding and alighting from trains. Enter next of kin details into the back of your passport.

• Changing money. Foreign currency regulations are strict. Only change money at banks or legal foreign exchange dealers. Keep and look after your transaction receipts as you may be required to provide proof that you obtained your rupees legally.

• Health. Many foreigners fall victim to the heat, which may be extreme and to dysentery and diarrhea caused by eating and drinking contaminated food and drink. Eat only recently prepared food that has been thoroughly cooked, and take sufficient liquids in the form of water that has been boiled, or bottled drinks, to prevent dehydration.

• Health Insurance. Make sure that you have comprehensive medical insurance to include private treatment and hospitalization as well as medical evacuation, since the State medical services are not generally so good. Keep your policy document with you.

• Leave ample time for travel. Flights are often over-booked and passengers (even those who have confirmed tickets) can sometimes find themselves without a seat. Arrive at least three hours before an international departure. Connection flights can be subject to unforeseen delay. You should allow extra funds to cover this contingency.

India Review 2016 Page 318 of 408 pages India

• Dress. While Indian attitudes to informal European styles of dress are generally tolerant, local religious or other sensibilities should be borne in mind. If in doubt take local advice especially with regard to topless bathing. Nude bathing is illegal, even in holiday resorts such as Goa.

• Safety on beaches. Exercise caution in the waters of India's coastline, which are subject to strong under-currents.

• Currency, gold and electric goods smuggling. Don't risk it. Indian customs authorities have powers to deal with suspected currency or gold smugglers. Don't be tempted by promises of easy rewards. Those who are usually end up repenting in an Indian jail for 10 years.

• Don't get involved in drugs. The penalties for smuggling, possession and use are severe (10 - 20 years jail plus fine) and detention of up to three years awaiting trial. Second offenders can receive the death sentence.

• Restricted areas. Don't venture into restricted areas without a permit. The main regions forbidden to foreigners without permits are border areas between India and Pakistan (in Punjab and Rajasthan) and several states in the far north-east of India.

• Photography. Don't photograph military installations. Photography at some civil airports is also forbidden as they are shared with the Indian Air Force.

Note: This information is directly quoted from the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Sources: United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Business Culture: Information for Business Travelers

For general information on etiquette in India, please see our Cultural Etiquette page.

Sources: United States Department of State Commercial Guides

Online Resources Regarding Entry Requirements and Visas

Foreign Entry Requirements for Americans from the United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1765.html

India Review 2016 Page 319 of 408 pages India

Visa Services for Non-Americans from the United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/visa/visa_1750.html

Visa Bulletins from the United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html

Visa Waivers from the United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html - new

Passport and Visa Information from the Government of the United Kingdom http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/

Visa Information from the Government of Australia http://www.dfat.gov.au/visas/index.html

Passport Information from the Government of Australia https://www.passports.gov.au/Web/index.aspx

Passport Information from the Government of Canada http://www.voyage.gc.ca/preparation_information/passport_passeport-eng.asp

Visa Information from the Government of Canada http://www.voyage.gc.ca/preparation_information/visas-eng.asp

Online Visa Processing by Immigration Experts by VisaPro http://www.visapro.com

Sources: United States Department of State, United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Government of Australia: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Government of Canada Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Useful Online Resources for Travelers

Country-Specific Travel Information from United States http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1765.html

Travel Advice by Country from Government of United Kingdom http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/travel-advice-by-country/

India Review 2016 Page 320 of 408 pages India

General Travel Advice from Government of Australia http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/General

Travel Bulletins from the Government of Australia http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/TravelBulletins/

Travel Tips from Government of Australia http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/tips/index.html

Travel Checklist by Government of Canada http://www.voyage.gc.ca/preparation_information/checklist_sommaire-eng.asp

Travel Checklist from Government of United Kingdom http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/staying-safe/checklist

Your trip abroad from United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/brochures/brochures_1225.html

A safe trip abroad from United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/safety/safety_1747.html

Tips for expatriates abroad from United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/living/residing/residing_1235.html

Tips for students from United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/living/studying/studying_1238.html http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/brochures/brochures_1219.html

Medical information for travelers from United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/health/health_1185.html

US Customs Travel information http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/travel/

Sources: United States Department of State; United States Customs Department, United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Government of Australia; Government of Canada: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Other Practical Online Resources for Travelers

Foreign Language Phrases for Travelers

India Review 2016 Page 321 of 408 pages India http://www.travlang.com/languages/ http://www.omniglot.com/language/phrases/index.htm

World Weather Forecasts http://www.intellicast.com/ http://www.wunderground.com/ http://www.worldweather.org/

Worldwide Time Zones, Map, World Clock http://www.timeanddate.com/ http://www.worldtimezone.com/

International Airport Codes http://www.world-airport-codes.com/

International Dialing Codes http://www.kropla.com/dialcode.htm http://www.countrycallingcodes.com/

International Phone Guide http://www.kropla.com/phones.htm

International Mobile Phone Guide http://www.kropla.com/mobilephones.htm

International Internet Café Search Engine http://cybercaptive.com/

Global Internet Roaming http://www.kropla.com/roaming.htm

World Electric Power Guide http://www.kropla.com/electric.htm http://www.kropla.com/electric2.htm

World Television Standards and Codes http://www.kropla.com/tv.htm International Currency Exchange Rates http://www.xe.com/ucc/

Banking and Financial Institutions Across the World

India Review 2016 Page 322 of 408 pages India http://www.123world.com/banks/index.html

International Credit Card or Automated Teller Machine (ATM) Locator http://visa.via.infonow.net/locator/global/ http://www.mastercard.com/us/personal/en/cardholderservices/atmlocations/index.html

International Chambers of Commerce http://www.123world.com/chambers/index.html

World Tourism Websites http://123world.com/tourism/

Diplomatic and Consular Information

United States Diplomatic Posts Around the World http://www.usembassy.gov/

United Kingdom Diplomatic Posts Around the World http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/embassies-and-posts/find-an-embassy-overseas/

Australia's Diplomatic Posts Around the World http://www.dfat.gov.au/missions/ http://www.dfat.gov.au/embassies.html

Canada's Embassies and High Commissions http://www.international.gc.ca/ciw-cdm/embassies-ambassades.aspx

Resources for Finding Embassies and other Diplomatic Posts Across the World http://www.escapeartist.com/embassy1/embassy1.htm

Safety and Security

Travel Warnings by Country from Government of Australia http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/

Travel Warnings and Alerts from United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/pa/pa_1766.html

India Review 2016 Page 323 of 408 pages India

Travel Reports and Warnings by Government of Canada http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/menu-eng.asp http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/updates_mise-a-jour-eng.asp

Travel Warnings from Government of United Kingdom http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/travel-advice-by-country/ http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/travel-advice-by-country/? action=noTravelAll#noTravelAll

Sources: United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the United States Department of State, the Government of Canada: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Government of Australia: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Other Safety and Security Online Resources for Travelers

United States Department of State Information on Terrorism http://www.state.gov/s/ct/

Government of the United Kingdom Resource on the Risk of Terrorism http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front? pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1044011304926

Government of Canada Terrorism Guide http://www.international.gc.ca/crime/terrorism-terrorisme.aspx?lang=eng

Information on Terrorism by Government of Australia http://www.dfat.gov.au/icat/index.html

FAA Resource on Aviation Safety http://www.faasafety.gov/

In-Flight Safety Information for Air Travel (by British Airways crew trainer, Anna Warman) http://www.warman.demon.co.uk/anna/inflight.html

Hot Spots: Travel Safety and Risk Information http://www.airsecurity.com/hotspots/HotSpots.asp

Information on Human Rights http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/

Sources: The United States Department of State, the United States Customs Department, the

India Review 2016 Page 324 of 408 pages India

Government of Canada, the Government of United Kingdom, the Government of Australia, the Federal Aviation Authority, Anna Warman's In-flight Website, Hot Spots Travel and Risk Information

Diseases/Health Data

Please Note: Most of the entry below constitutes a generalized health advisory, which a traveler might find useful, regardless of a particular destination.

As a supplement, however, reader will also find below a list of countries flagged with current health notices and alerts issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Please note that travel to the following countries, based on these 3 levels of warnings, is ill-advised, or should be undertaken with the utmost precaution:

Level 3 (highest level of concern; avoid non-essential travel) --

Guinea - Ebola Liberia - Ebola Nepal - Eathquake zone Sierra Leone - Ebola

Level 2 (intermediate level of concern; use utmost caution during travel) --

Cameroon - Polio Somalia - Polio Vanuatu - Tropical Cyclone zone Throughout Middle East and Arabia Peninsula - MERS ((Middle East Respiratory Syndrome)

India Review 2016 Page 325 of 408 pages India

Level 1 (standard level of concern; use practical caution during travel) -

Australia - Ross River disease Bosnia-Herzegovina - Measles Brazil - Dengue Fever Brazil - Malaria Brazil - Zika China - H7N9 Avian flu Cuba - Cholera Egypt - H5N1 Bird flu Ethiopia - Measles Germany - Measles Japan - Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) Kyrgyzstan - Measles Malaysia -Dengue Fever Mexico - Chikungunya Mexico - Hepatitis A Nigeria - Meningitis Philippines - Measles Scotland - Mumps Singapore - Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) South Korea - MERS ((Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) Throughout Caribbean - Chikungunya Throughout Central America - Chikungunya Throughout South America - Chikungunya Throughout Pacific Islands - Chikungunya

For specific information related to these health notices and alerts please see the CDC's listing available at URL: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices

Health Information for Travelers to India

Food and waterborne diseases are the number one cause of illness in travelers. Travelers' diarrhea can be caused by viruses, bacteria, or parasites, which are found throughout the region and can contaminate food or water. Infections may cause diarrhea and vomiting (E. coli, Salmonella, cholera, and parasites), fever (typhoid fever and toxoplasmosis), or liver damage (hepatitis). Make sure your food and drinking water are safe. (See below.)

Malaria is a preventable infection that can be fatal if left untreated. Prevent infection by taking prescription antimalarial drugs and protecting yourself against mosquito bites (see below). Malaria

India Review 2016 Page 326 of 408 pages India risk in this region exists in some urban and many rural areas, depending on elevation. For specific locations, see Malaria Information for Travelers to the Indian Subcontinent. Most travelers to the Indian Subcontinent at risk for malaria should take mefloquine to prevent malaria.

A certificate of yellow fever vaccination may be required for entry into certain of these countries if you are coming from countries in tropical South America or sub-Saharan Africa. (There is no risk for yellow fever in the Indian Subcontinent.) For detailed information, see Comprehensive Yellow Fever Vaccination Requirements

Dengue, filariasis, Japanese encephalitis, leishmaniasis, and plague are diseases carried by insects that also occur in this region. Protecting yourself against insect bites (see below) will help to prevent these diseases.

If you visit the Himalayan Mountains, ascend gradually to allow time for your body to adjust to the high altitude, which can cause insomnia, headaches, nausea, and altitude sickness. In addition, use sunblock rated at least 15 SPF, because the risk of sunburn is greater at high altitudes.

Because motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of injury among travelers, walk and drive defensively. Avoid travel at night if possible and always use seat belts.

CDC Recommends the Following Vaccines (as Appropriate for Age):

See your doctor at least 4-6 weeks before your trip to allow time for shots to take effect.

• Hepatitis A or immune globulin (IG).

• Hepatitis B, if you might be exposed to blood (for example, health-care workers), have sexual contact with the local population, stay longer than 6 months, or be exposed through medical treatment.

• Japanese encephalitis, only if you plan to visit rural areas for 4 weeks or more, except under special circumstances, such as a known outbreak of Japanese encephalitis.

• Rabies, if you might be exposed to wild or domestic animals through your work or recreation.

• Typhoid vaccination is particularly important because of the presence of S. typhi strains resistant to multiple antibiotics in this region.

• As needed, booster doses for tetanus-diphtheria and measles, and a one-time dose of polio for adults. Hepatitis B vaccine is now recommended for all infants and for children ages 11-12 years who did not receive the series as infants.

India Review 2016 Page 327 of 408 pages India

To Stay Healthy, Do:

• Wash hands often with soap and water.

• Drink only bottled or boiled water, or carbonated (bubbly) drinks in cans or bottles. Avoid tap water, fountain drinks, and ice cubes. If this is not possible, make water safer by BOTH filtering through an "absolute 1-micron or less" filter AND adding iodine tablets to the filtered water. "Absolute 1-micron filters" are found in camping/outdoor supply stores.

• Eat only thoroughly cooked food or fruits and vegetables you have peeled yourself. Remember: boil it, cook it, peel it, or forget it.

• If you are going to visit areas where there is risk for malaria, take your malaria prevention medication before, during, and after travel, as directed. (See your doctor for a prescription.)

• Protect yourself from insects by remaining in well-screened areas, using repellents (applied sparingly at 4-hour intervals) and permethrin-impregnated mosquito nets, and wearing long-sleeved shirts and long pants from dusk through dawn.

• To prevent fungal and parasitic infections, keep feet clean and dry, and do not go barefoot.

• Always use latex condoms to reduce the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

To Avoid Getting Sick:

• Don't eat food purchased from street vendors.

• Don't drink beverages with ice.

• Don't eat dairy products unless you know they have been pasteurized.

• Don't share needles with anyone.

• Don't handle animals (especially monkeys, dogs, and cats), to avoid bites and serious diseases (including rabies and plague). (For more information, please see the Animal-Associated Hazards on the Making Travel Safe page at URL

• Don't swim in fresh water. Salt water is usually safer. (For more information, please see the Swimming Precautions on the Making Travel Safe page.)

India Review 2016 Page 328 of 408 pages India

What You Need To Bring with You:

• Long-sleeved shirt and long pants to wear while outside whenever possible, to prevent illnesses carried by insects (e.g., malaria, dengue, filariasis, leishmaniasis, and onchocerciasis).

• Insect repellent containing DEET (diethylmethyltoluamide), in 30%-35% strength for adults and 6%-10% for children. Travelers who are not in air-conditioned or well-screened housing should purchase a bed net impregnated with the insecticide permethrin. (Bed nets can be purchased in camping or military supply stores.)

• Over-the-counter antidiarrheal medicine to take if you have diarrhea.

• Iodine tablets and water filters to purify water if bottled water is not available. See Do's above for more detailed information about water filters.

• Sunblock, sunglasses, hat.

• Prescription medications: make sure you have enough to last during your trip, as well as a copy of the prescription(s).

After You Return Home:

If you have visited an area where there is risk for malaria, continue taking your malaria medication weekly for 4 weeks after you leave the area.

If you become ill after travel-even as long as a year after your trip-tell your doctor the areas you have visited.

For More Information:

Ask your doctor or check the CDC web sites for more information about how to protect yourself against diseases that occur in the Indian Subcontinent, such as:

For information about diseases-

Carried by Insects Dengue, Japanese encephalitis Malaria, Plague Carried in Food or Water Cholera, Escherichia coli, diarrhea, Hepatitis A, Typhoid Fever

Person-to-Person Contact

India Review 2016 Page 329 of 408 pages India

Hepatitis B, HIV/AIDS

For more information about these and other diseases, please check the Diseases ( section and the Health Topics A-Z (

Note:

India is located in the Indian subcontinent health region.

Sources:

The Center for Disease Control Destinations Website:

India Review 2016 Page 330 of 408 pages India

Chapter 6

Environmental Overview

India Review 2016 Page 331 of 408 pages India

Environmental Issues

General Overview:

In terms of environmental issues, India 's major challenges are directly attributable to its extremely high population density. In particular, agricultural activities, such as overgrazing, short cultivation cycles, slash and burn practices, destructive logging practices, and deforestation of timber reserves for fuel, all contribute conjointly to the decimation of the subcontinent's environmental system.

Current Issues:

-Deforestation -Soil erosion -Overgrazing -Desertification -Threats to bio-diversity, in particular specific forms of wildlife such as the Bengali Tiger -Threats to the marine eco-systems, including the destruction of coral reefs -Air pollution from industrial effluents and vehicle emissions -Water pollution from raw sewage and runoff of agricultural pesticides -Non-potable water throughout the country -Over-population and concomitant strain on natural resources -Energy-related environmental problems, such as chemical and oil pollution

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mtc):

501.5

Country Rank (GHG output):

5th

Natural Hazards:

India Review 2016 Page 332 of 408 pages India

-droughts -flash floods -severe thunderstorms -earthquakes

Environmental Policy

Regulation and Jurisdiction:

The regulation and protection of the environment in India is under the jurisdiction of the following:

Ministry of Forests and Environment Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Ocean Development Ministry of Water Resources.

Major Non-Governmental Organizations:

Asian Elephant Conservation Center (AECC) Assam Valley Wildlife Society Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS) Center for Science and Environment (CSE) Centre for Wildlife Studies Data Center for Natural Resources (DCNR) Ecosystem Research Group Indian Herpetological Society (HIS) Madras Crocodile Bank Irula Tribal Women's Welfare Society National Women's Welfare Centre Peace and Disarmament Society of Kerala Ranthambhore Foundation (RF) M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation's Centre for Research on Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) WILD's Society for Conservation of Forest and Wildlife

India Review 2016 Page 333 of 408 pages India

World Wide Fund for Nature-India.

International Environmental Accords:

Party to:

Antarctic-Environmental Protocol Antarctic-Marine Living Resources Antarctic Treaty, Biodiversity Climate Change Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol Desertification Endangered Species Environmental Modification Hazardous Wastes Law of the Sea Nuclear Test Ban Ozone Layer Protection Ship Pollution Tropical Timber 83 Tropical Timber 94 Wetlands Whaling

Signed but not ratified:

None

Kyoto Protocol Status (year ratified):

2002

India Review 2016 Page 334 of 408 pages India

Greenhouse Gas Ranking

Greenhouse Gas Ranking

GHG Emissions Rankings

Country Country Rank

1 United States

2 China

4 Russia

5 Japan

6 India

7 Germany

8 United Kingdom

9 Canada

10 Korea, South

11 Italy

12 Mexico

13 France

India Review 2016 Page 335 of 408 pages India

14 South Africa

15 Iran

16 Indonesia

17 Australia

18 Spain

19 Brazil

20 Saudi Arabia

21 Ukraine

22 Poland

23 Taiwan

24 Turkey

25 Thailand

26 Netherlands

27 Kazakhstan

28 Malaysia

29 Egypt

30 Venezuela

31 Argentina

India Review 2016 Page 336 of 408 pages India

32 Uzbekistan

33 Czech Republic

34 Belgium

35 Pakistan

36 Romania

37 Greece

38 United Arab Emirates

39 Algeria

40 Nigeria

41 Austria

42 Iraq

43 Finland

44 Philippines

45 Vietnam

46 Korea, North

47 Israel

48 Portugal

49 Colombia

India Review 2016 Page 337 of 408 pages India

50 Belarus

51 Kuwait

52 Hungary

53 Chile

54 Denmark

55 Serbia & Montenegro

56 Sweden

57 Syria

58 Libya

59 Bulgaria

60 Singapore

61 Switzerland

62 Ireland

63 Turkmenistan

64 Slovakia

65 Bangladesh

66 Morocco

67 New Zealand

India Review 2016 Page 338 of 408 pages India

68 Oman

69 Qatar

70 Azerbaijan

71 Norway

72 Peru

73 Cuba

74 Ecuador

75 Trinidad & Tobago

76 Croatia

77 Tunisia

78 Dominican Republic

79 Lebanon

80 Estonia

81 Yemen

82 Jordan

83 Slovenia

84 Bahrain

85 Angola

India Review 2016 Page 339 of 408 pages India

86 Bosnia & Herzegovina

87 Lithuania

88 Sri Lanka

89 Zimbabwe

90 Bolivia

91 Jamaica

92 Guatemala

93 Luxembourg

94 Myanmar

95 Sudan

96 Kenya

97 Macedonia

98 Mongolia

99 Ghana

100 Cyprus

101 Moldova

102 Latvia

103 El Salvador

India Review 2016 Page 340 of 408 pages India

104 Brunei

105 Honduras

106 Cameroon

107 Panama

108 Costa Rica

109 Cote d'Ivoire

110 Kyrgyzstan

111 Tajikistan

112 Ethiopia

113 Senegal

114 Uruguay

115 Gabon

116 Albania

117 Nicaragua

118 Botswana

119 Paraguay

120 Tanzania

121 Georgia

India Review 2016 Page 341 of 408 pages India

122 Armenia

123 Congo, RC

124 Mauritius

125 Nepal

126 Mauritius

127 Nepal

128 Mauritania

129 Malta

130 Papua New Guinea

131 Zambia

132 Suriname

133 Iceland

134 Togo

135 Benin

136 Uganda

137 Bahamas

138 Haiti

139 Congo, DRC

India Review 2016 Page 342 of 408 pages India

140 Guyana

141 Mozambique

142 Guinea

143 Equatorial Guinea

144 Laos

145 Barbados

146 Niger

147 Fiji

148 Burkina Faso

149 Malawi

150 Swaziland

151 Belize

152 Afghanistan

153 Sierra Leone

154 Eritrea

155 Rwanda

156 Mali

157 Seychelles

India Review 2016 Page 343 of 408 pages India

158 Cambodia

159 Liberia

160 Bhutan

161 Maldives

162 Antigua & Barbuda

163 Djibouti

164 Saint Lucia

165 Gambia

166 Guinea-Bissau

167 Central African Republic

168 Palau

169 Burundi

170 Grenada

171 Lesotho

172 Saint Vincent & the Grenadines

173 Solomon Islands

174 Samoa

175 Cape Verde

India Review 2016 Page 344 of 408 pages India

176 Nauru

177 Dominica

178 Saint Kitts & Nevis

179 Chad

180 Tonga

181 Sao Tome & Principe

182 Comoros

183 Vanuatu

185 Kiribati

Not Ranked Andorra

Not Ranked East Timor

Not Ranked Holy See

Not Ranked Hong Kong

Not Ranked Liechtenstein

Not Ranked Marshall Islands

Not Ranked Micronesia

Not Ranked Monaco

Not Ranked San Marino

India Review 2016 Page 345 of 408 pages India

Not Ranked Somalia

Not Ranked Tuvalu

* European Union is ranked 3rd Cook Islands are ranked 184th Niue is ranked 186th

Global Environmental Snapshot

Introduction

The countries of the world face many environmental challenges in common. Nevertheless, the nature and intensity of problem vary from region to region, as do various countries' respective capacities, in terms of affluence and infrastructure, to remediate threats to environmental quality.

Consciousness of perils affecting the global environment came to the fore in the last third or so of the 20th century has continued to intensify well into the new millennium. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, considerable environmental progress has been made at the level of institutional developments, international cooperation accords, and public participation. Approximately two-dozen international environmental protection accords with global implications have been promulgated since the late 1970s under auspices of the United Nations and other international organizations, together with many additional regional agreements. Attempts to address and rectify environmental problems take the form of legal frameworks, economic instruments, environmentally sound technologies and cleaner production processes as well as conservation efforts. Environmental impact assessments have increasingly been applied across the globe.

Environmental degradation affects the quality, or aesthetics, of human life, but it also displays potential to undermine conditions necessary for the sustainability of human life. Attitudes toward the importance of environmental protection measures reflect ambivalence derived from this bifurcation. On one hand, steps such as cleaning up pollution, dedicating parkland, and suchlike, are seen as embellishments undertaken by wealthy societies already assured they can successfully perform those functions deemed, ostensibly, more essential-for instance, public health and education, employment and economic development. On the other hand, in poorer countries, activities causing environmental damage-for instance the land degradation effects of unregulated logging, slash-and-burn agriculture, overgrazing, and mining-can seem justified insofar as such

India Review 2016 Page 346 of 408 pages India activities provide incomes and livelihoods.

Rapid rates of resource depletion are associated with poverty and high population growth, themselves correlated, whereas consumption per capita is much higher in the most developed countries, despite these nations' recent progress in energy efficiency and conservation. It is impossible to sequester the global environmental challenge from related economic, social and political challenges.

First-tier industrialized countries have recently achieved measurable decreases in environmental pollution and the rate of resource depletion, a success not matched in middle income and developing countries. It is believed that the discrepancy is due to the fact that industrialized countries have more developed infrastructures to accommodate changes in environmental policy, to apply environmental technologies, and to invest in public education. The advanced industrialized countries incur relatively lower costs in alleviating environmental problems, in comparison to developing countries, since in the former even extensive environmental programs represent a rather minuscule percentage of total expenditures. Conversely, budget constraints, lagged provision of basic services to the population, and other factors such as debt service and militarization may preclude institution of minimal environmental protection measures in the poorest countries.

A synopsis for the current situation facing each region of the world follows:

Regional Synopsis: Africa

The African continent, the world's second-largest landmass, encompasses many of the world's least developed countries. By global standards, urbanization is comparatively low but rising at a rapid rate. More heavily industrialized areas at the northern and southern ends of the continent experience the major share of industrial pollution. In other regions the most serious environmental problems typically stem from inefficient subsistence farming methods and other forms of land degradation, which have affected an increasingly extensive area under pressure of a widely impoverished, fast-growing population. Africa's distribution of natural resources is very uneven. It is the continent at greatest risk of desertification, especially in the Sahel region at the edge of the Sahara but also in other dry-range areas. Yet at the same time, Africa also harbors some of the earth's richest and most diverse biological zones.

Key Points:

Up to half a billion hectares of African land are moderately to severely degraded, an occurrence reflecting short-fallow shifting cultivation and overgrazing as well as a climatic pattern of recurrent droughts.

India Review 2016 Page 347 of 408 pages India

Soil degradation is severe along the expanse directly south of the Sahara, from the west to the east coasts. Parts of southern Africa, central-eastern Africa, and the neighboring island of Madagascar suffer from serious soil degradation as well.

Africa contains about 17 percent of the world's forest cover, concentrated in the tropical belt of the continent. Many of the forests, however, are severely depleted, with an estimated 70 percent showing some degree of degradation.

Population growth has resulted in continuing loss of arable land, as inefficient subsistence farming techniques affect increasingly extensive areas. Efforts to implement settled, sustainable agriculture have met with some recent success, but much further progress in this direction is needed. Especially in previously uninhabited forestlands, concern over deforestation is intensifying.

By contrast, the African savanna remains the richest grassland in the world, supporting a substantial concentration of animal and plant life. Wildlife parks are sub-Saharan Africa's greatest tourist attraction, and with proper management-giving local people a stake in conservation and controlling the pace of development-could greatly enhance African economies.

Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of northern, southern and eastern Africa are currently threatened, while the biological diversity in Mauritania and Madagascar is even further compromised with over 20 percent of the mammal species in these two countries currently under threat.

With marine catch trends increasing from 500,000 metric tons in the 1950s to over 3,000,000 metric tons by 2000, there was increasing concern about the reduction in fisheries and marine life, should this trend continue unabated.

Water resource vulnerability is a major concern in northeastern Africa, and a moderate concern across the rest of the continent. An exception is central Africa, which has plentiful water supplies.

Many Africans lack adequate access to resources, not just (if at all) because the resources are unevenly distributed geographically, but also through institutional failures such as faulty land tenure systems or political upheaval. The quality of Africa's natural resources, despite their spotty distribution, is in fact extraordinarily rich. The infrastructure needed to protect and benefit from this natural legacy, however, is largely lacking.

Regional Synopsis: Asia and the Pacific

Asia-earth's largest landmass-and the many large and nearly innumerable small islands lying off its Pacific shore display extraordinarily contrasting landscapes, levels of development, and degrees of

India Review 2016 Page 348 of 408 pages India environmental stress. In the classification used here, the world's smallest continent, Australia, is also included in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Asia-Pacific region is home to 9 of the world's 14 largest urban areas, and as energy use for utilities, industry and transport increases in developing economies, urban centers are subject to worsening air quality. Intense population density in places such as Bangladesh or Hong Kong is the quintessential image many people have of Asia, yet vast desert areas such as the Gobi and the world's highest mountain range, the Himalayas, span the continent as well. Forested areas in Southeast Asia and the islands of Indonesia and the Philippines were historically prized for their tropical hardwood, but in many places this resource is now severely depleted. Low-lying small island states are extremely vulnerable to the effects of global warming, both rising sea levels and an anticipated increase in cyclones.

Key Points:

Asian timber reserves are forecast to be depleted in the next 40 years. Loss of natural forest is irreversible in some areas, but plantation programs to restore tree cover may ameliorate a portion of the resulting land degradation.

Increased usage of fossil fuels in China and other parts of southern Asia is projected to result in a marked increase in emissions, especially in regard to carbon dioxide. The increased usage of energy has led to a marked upsurge in air pollution across the region.

Acidification is an emerging problem regionally, with sulfur dioxide emissions expected to triple by 2010 if the current growth rate is sustained. China, Thailand, India, and Korea seem to be suffering from particularly high rates of acid deposition. By contrast, Asia's most highly developed economy, Japan, has effected substantial improvements in its environmental indicators.

Water pollution in the Pacific is an urgent concern since up to 70 percent of the water discharged into the region's waters receives no treatment. Additionally, the disposal of solid wastes, in like manner, poses a major threat in a region with many areas of high population density.

The Asia-Pacific region is the largest expanse of the world's land that is adversely affected by soil degradation.

The region around Australia reportedly suffers the largest degree of ozone depletion.

The microstates of the Pacific suffer land loss due to global warming, and the consequent rise in the levels of ocean waters. A high-emissions scenario and anthropogenic climate impact at the upper end of the currently predicted range would probably force complete evacuation of the lowest-elevation islands sometime in this century.

India Review 2016 Page 349 of 408 pages India

The species-rich reefs surrounding Southeast Asia are highly vulnerable to the deleterious effects of coastal development, land-based pollution, over-fishing and exploitative fishing methods, as well as marine pollution from oil spills and other activities.

With marine catch trends increasing from 5,000,000 metric tons in the 1950s to over 20,000,000 metric tons by 2000, there was increasing concern about the reduction in fisheries and marine life, should this trend continue unabated.

Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of China and south-east Asia are currently threatened, while the biological diversity in India, Japan, Australia, the Philippines, Indonesia and parts of Malaysia is even further compromised with over 20 percent of the mammal species in these countries currently under threat.

Water resource vulnerability is a serious concern in areas surrounding the Indian subcontinent.

Regional Synopsis: Central Asia

The Central Asian republics, formerly in the Soviet Union, experience a range of environmental problems as the result of poorly executed agricultural, industrial, and nuclear programs during the Soviet era. Relatively low population densities are the norm, especially since upon the breakup of the U.S.S.R. many ethnic Russians migrated back to European Russia. In this largely semi-arid region, drought, water shortages, and soil salinization pose major challenges.

Key Points:

The use of agricultural pesticides, such as DDT and other chemicals, has contributed to the contamination of soil and groundwater throughout the region.

Land and soil degradation, and in particular, increased salinization, is mostly attributable to faulty irrigation practices.

Significant desertification is also a problem in the region.

Air pollution is prevalent, mostly due to use of low octane automobile fuel.

Industrial pollution of the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea, as a result of industrial effluents as well as mining and metal production, presents a challenge to the countries bordering these bodies of water.

One of the most severe environmental problems in the region is attributable to the several billion

India Review 2016 Page 350 of 408 pages India tons of hazardous materials stored in landfills across Central Asia.

Uzbekistan's particular problem involves the contraction of the Aral Sea, which has decreased in size by a third, as a consequence of river diversions and poor irrigation practices. The effect has been the near-total biological destruction of that body of water.

Kazakhstan, as a consequence of being the heartland of the former Soviet Union's nuclear program, has incurred a high of cancerous malignancies, biogenetic abnormalities and radioactive contamination.

While part of the Soviet Union, the republics in the region experienced very high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, as a consequence of rapid industrialization using cheap but dirty energy sources, especially coal.

By contrast, however, there have recently been substantial reductions in the level of greenhouse gas emissions, especially those attributable to coal burning, with further decreases anticipated over the next decade. These changes are partially due to the use of cleaner energy technologies, such as natural gas, augmented by governmental commitment to improving environmental standards.

Regional Synopsis: Europe

Western Europe underwent dramatic transformation of its landscape, virtually eliminating large- scale natural areas, during an era of rapid industrialization, which intensified upon its recovery from World War II. In Eastern Europe and European Russia, intensive land development has been less prevalent, so that some native forests and other natural areas remain. Air and water pollution from use of dirty fuels and industrial effluents, however, are more serious environmental problems in Eastern than in Western Europe, though recent trends show improvement in many indicators. Acid rain has inflicted heavy environmental damage across much of Europe, particularly on forests. Europe and North America are the only regions in which water usage for industry exceeds that for agriculture, although in Mediterranean nations agriculture is the largest water consumer.

Key Points:

Europe contributes 36 percent of the world's chlorofluorocarbon emissions, 30 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, and 25 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.

Sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions are the cause of 30 to 50 percent of Central and Eastern Europe's deforestation.

Acid rain has been an environmental concern for decades and continues to be a challenge in parts

India Review 2016 Page 351 of 408 pages India of Western Europe.

Overexploitation of up to 60 percent of Europe's groundwater presents a problem in industrial and urban areas.

With marine catch trends increasing from 5,000,000 metric tons in the 1950s to over 20,000,000 metric tons by 2000, there was increasing concern about the reduction in fisheries and marine life, should this trend continue unabated.

Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of western Europe, Eastern Europe and Russia are currently threatened, while the biological diversity on the Iberian Peninsula is even further compromised with over 40 percent of the mammal species in this region currently under threat. As a result, there has been a 10 percent increase in protected areas of Europe.

A major environmental issue for Europe involves the depletion of various already endangered or threatened species, and most significantly, the decline of fish stocks. Some estimates suggest that up to 50 percent of the continent's fish species may be considered endangered species. Coastal fisheries have been over-harvested, resulting in catch limits or moratoriums on many commercially important fish species.

Fortunately, in the last few years, these policies have started to yield measurable results with decreasing trends in marine fish catch.

Recently, most European countries have adopted cleaner production technologies, and alternative methods of waste disposal, including recycling.

The countries of Eastern Europe have made air quality a major environmental priority. This is exemplified by the Russian Federation's addition to the 1995 "Berlin Mandate" (transnational legislation based on resolutions of the Rio Earth Summit) compelling nations to promote "carbon sinks" to absorb greenhouse gases.

On a relative basis, when compared with the degree of industrial emissions emitted by many Eastern European countries until the late 1980s, there has been some marked increase in air quality in the region, as obsolete plants are closed and a transition to cleaner fuels and more efficient energy use takes place.

Regional Synopsis: The Middle and Near East

Quite possibly, the Middle East will exemplify the adage that, as the 20th century was a century

India Review 2016 Page 352 of 408 pages India fixated on oil, the 21st century will be devoted to critical decisions about water. Many (though far from all) nations in the Middle East rank among those countries with the largest oil and gas reserves, but water resources are relatively scarce throughout this predominantly dry region. Effects of global warming may cause moderately high elevation areas that now typically receive winter "snowpack" to experience mainly rain instead, which would further constrain dry-season water availability. The antiquities and religious shrines of the region render it a great magnet for tourism, which entails considerable economic growth potential but also intensifies stresses on the environment.

Key Points:

Water resource vulnerability is a serious concern across the entire region. The increased usage of, and further demand for water, has exacerbated long-standing water scarcity in the region. For instance, river diversions and industrial salt works have caused the Dead Sea to shrink by one-third from its original surface area, with further declines expected.

The oil industry in the region contributes to water pollution in the Persian Gulf, as a result of oil spills, which have averaged 1.2 million barrels of oil spilt per year (some sources suggest that this figure is understated). The consequences are severe because even after oil spills have been cleaned up, environmental damage to the food webs and ecosystems of marine life will persist for a prolonged period.

The region's coastal zone is considered one of the most fragile and endangered ecosystems of the world. Land reclamation, shoreline construction, discharge of industrial effluents, and tourism (such as diving in the Red Sea) contribute to widespread coastal damage.

Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of the Middle East are currently threatened.

Since the 1980s, 11 percent of the region's natural forest has been depleted.

Regional Synopsis: Latin America and the Caribbean

The Latin American and Caribbean region is characterized by exceedingly diverse landforms that have generally seen high rates of population growth and economic development in recent decades. The percentage of inhabitants residing in urban areas is quite high at 73.4 percent; the region includes the megacities of Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and Rio de Janeiro. The region also includes the world's second-highest mountain range, the Andes; significant expanses of desert and grassland; the coral reefs of the Caribbean Sea; and the world's largest contiguous tropical forest in the Amazon basin. Threats to the latter from subsistence and commercial farming, mineral exploitation and timbering are well publicized. Nevertheless, of eight countries worldwide that still retain at least 70

India Review 2016 Page 353 of 408 pages India percent of their original forest cover, six are in Latin America. The region accounts for nearly half (48.3 percent) of the world's greenhouse gas emissions derived from land clearing, but as yet a comparatively minuscule share (4.3 percent) of such gases from industrial sources.

Key Points:

Although Latin America is one of the most biologically diverse regions of the world, this biodiversity is highly threatened, as exemplified by the projected extinction of up to 100,000 species in the next few decades. Much of this loss will be concentrated in the Amazon area, although the western coastline of South America will also suffer significant depletion of biological diversity. The inventory of rainforest species with potentially useful commercial or medical applications is incomplete, but presumed to include significant numbers of such species that may become extinct before they are discovered and identified.

Up to 50 percent of the region's grazing land has lost its soil fertility as a result of soil erosion, salinization, alkalinization and overgrazing.

The Caribbean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean have all been contaminated by agricultural wastes, which are discharged into streams that flow into these major waters. Water pollution derived from phosphorous, nitrates and pesticides adversely affects fish stocks, contributes to oxygen depletion and fosters overgrowth of aquatic vegetation. Marine life will continue to be severely compromised as a result of these conditions.

Due to industrial development in the region, many beaches of eastern Latin America and the Caribbean suffer from tar deposits.

Most cities in the region lack adequate sewage treatment facilities, and rapid migration of the rural poor into the cities is widening the gap between current infrastructure capacity and the much greater level needed to provide satisfactory basic services.

The rainforest region of the Amazon Basin suffers from dangerously high levels of deforestation, which may be a significant contributory factor to global warming or "the greenhouse effect." In the late 1990s and into the new millennium, the rate of deforestation was around 20 million acres of rainforest being destroyed annually.

Deforestation on the steep rainforest slopes of Caribbean islands contributes to soil erosion and landslides, both of which then result in heavy sedimentation of nearby river systems. When these sedimented rivers drain into the sea and coral reefs, they poison the coral tissues, which are vital to the maintenance of the reef ecosystem. The result is marine degradation and nutrient depletion. Jamaica's coral reefs have never quite recovered from the effects of marine degradation.

India Review 2016 Page 354 of 408 pages India

The Southern Cone of Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay) suffers the effects of greatly increased ultraviolet-B radiation, as a consequence of more intense ozone depletion in the southern hemisphere.

Water resource vulnerability is an increasingly major concern in the northwestern portion of South America.

Regional Synopsis: North America

North American nations, in particular the United States and Canada, rank among the world's most highly developed industrial economies-a fact which has generated significant pollution problems, but also financial resources and skills that have enabled many problems to be corrected. Although efforts to promote energy efficiency, recycling, and suchlike have helped ease strains on the environment in a part of the world where per capita consumption levels are high, sprawling land development patterns and recent preferences many households have demonstrated for larger vehicles have offset these advances.

Meanwhile, a large portion of North America's original forest cover has been lost, though in many cases replaced by productive second-growth woodland. In recent years, attitudes toward best use of the region's remaining natural or scenic areas seem to be shifting toward recreation and preservation and away from resource extraction. With increasing attention on the energy scarcity in the United States, however, there is speculation that this shift may be short-lived. Indeed, the energy shortage on the west coast of the United States and associated calls for energy exploration, indicate a possible retrenchment toward resource extraction. At the same time, however, it has also served to highlight the need for energy conservation as well as alternative energy sources.

Despite generally successful anti-pollution efforts, various parts of the region continue to suffer significant air, water and land degradation from industrial, vehicular, and agricultural emissions and runoff. Mexico, as a middle-income country, displays environmental problems characteristic of a developing economy, including forest depletion, pollution from inefficient industrial processes and dirty fuels, and lack of sufficient waste-treatment infrastructure.

Key Points:

Because of significantly greater motor vehicle usage in the United States (U.S.) than in the rest of the world, the U.S. contribution of urban air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide, is disproportionately high in relation to its population.

Acid rain is an enduring issue of contention in the northeastern part of the United States, on the border with Canada.

India Review 2016 Page 355 of 408 pages India

Mexico's urban areas suffer extreme air pollution from carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and other toxic air pollutants. Emissions controls on vehicles are in their infancy, compared to analogous regulations in the U.S.

The cities of Mexico, including those on the U.S. border, also discharge large quantities of untreated or poorly treated sewage, though officials are currently planning infrastructure upgrades.

Deforestation is noteworthy in various regions of the U.S., especially along the northwest coastline. Old growth forests have been largely removed, but in the northeastern and upper midwestern sections of the United States, evidence suggests that the current extent of tree cover probably surpasses the figure for the beginning of the 20th century.

Extreme weather conditions in the last few years have resulted in a high level of soil erosion along the north coast of California; in addition, the coastline itself has shifted substantially due to soil erosion and concomitant landslides.

Agricultural pollution-including nitrate contamination of well water, nutrient runoff to waterways, and pesticide exposure-is significant in various areas. Noteworthy among affected places are California's Central Valley, extensive stretches of the Midwest, and land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Inland waterways, especially around the Great Lakes, have substantially improved their water quality, due to concentrated efforts at reducing water pollution by governmental, commercial and community representatives. Strict curbs on industrial effluents and near-universal implementation of sewage treatment are the chief factors responsible for this improvement.

A major environmental issue for Canada and the United States involves the depletion of various already endangered or threatened species, and most significantly, the decline of fish stocks. Coastal fisheries have been over-harvested, resulting in catch limits or moratoriums on many commercially important fish species. In the last few years, these policies have started to yield measurable results with decreasing trends in marine fish catch.

Due to the decay of neighboring ecosystems in Central America and the Caribbean, the sea surrounding Florida has become increasingly sedimented, contributing to marine degradation, nutrient depletion of the ecosystem, depletion of fish stocks, and diseases to coral species in particular.

Polar Regions

India Review 2016 Page 356 of 408 pages India

Key Points:

The significant rise in sea level, amounting 10 to 25 centimeters in the last 100 years, is due to the melting of the Arctic ice sheets, and is attributed to global warming.

The Antarctic suffers from a significant ozone hole, first detected in 1976. By 1985, a British scientific team reported a 40 percent decrease in usual regeneration rates of the ozone. Because a sustained increase in the amount of ultraviolet-B radiation would have adverse consequences upon all planetary life, recent environmental measures have been put into effect, aimed at reversing ozone depletion. These measures are projected to garner significant results by 2050.

Due to air and ocean currents, the Arctic is a sink for toxic releases originally discharged thousands of miles away. Arctic wildlife and Canada's Inuit population have higher bodily levels of contaminants such as PCB and dioxin than those found in people and animals in much of the rest of the world.

Global Environmental Concepts

1. Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases

The Greenhouse Effect:

In the early 19th century, the French physicist, Jean Fourier, contended that the earth's atmosphere functions in much the same way as the glass of a greenhouse, thus describing what is now understood as the "greenhouse effect." Put simply, the "greenhouse effect" confines some of the sun's energy to the earth, preserving some of the planet's warmth, rather than allowing it to flow back into space. In so doing, all kinds of life forms can flourish on earth. Thus, the "greenhouse effect" is necessary to sustain and preserve life forms and ecosystems on earth.

In the late 19th century, a Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, noticed that human activities, such as the burning of coal and other fossil fuels for heat, and the removal of forested lands for urban development, led to higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, in the atmosphere. This increase in the levels of greenhouse gases was believed to advance the "greenhouse effect" exponentially, and might be related to the trend in global warming.

India Review 2016 Page 357 of 408 pages India

In the wake of the Industrial Revolution, after industrial development took place on a large scale and the total human population burgeoned simultaneously with industrialization, the resulting increase in greenhouse gas emissions could, many scientists believe, be significant enough to have some bearing on climate. Indeed, many studies in recent years support the idea that there is a linkage between human activities and global warming, although there is less consensus on the extent to which this linkage may be relevant to environmental concerns.

That said, some scientists have argued that temperature fluctuations have existed throughout the evolution of the planet. Indeed, Dr. S. Fred Singer, the president of the Science and Environment Policy Project has noted that 3,000-year-old geological records of ocean sediment reveal changes in the surface temperature of the ocean. Hence, it is possible that climate variability is merely a normal fact of the planet's evolution. Yet even skeptics as to anthropogenic factors concur that any substantial changes in global temperatures would likely have an effect upon the earth's ecosystems, as well as the life forms that inhabit them.

The Relationship Between Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases:

A large number of climatologists believe that the increase in atmospheric concentrations of "greenhouse gas emissions," mostly a consequence of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, are contributing to global warming. The cause notwithstanding, the planet has reportedly warmed 0.3°C to 0.6°C over the last century. Indeed, each year during the 1990s was one of the very warmest in the 20th century, with the mean surface temperature for 1999 being the fifth warmest on record since 1880.

In early 2000, a panel of atmospheric scientists for the National Research Council concluded in a report that global warming was, indeed, a reality. While the panel, headed by Chairman John Wallace, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, stated that it remained unclear whether human activities have contributed to the earth's increasing temperatures, it was apparent that global warming exists.

In 2001, following a request for further study by the incoming Bush administration in the United States, the National Academy of Sciences again confirmed that global warming had been in existence for the last 20 years. The study also projected an increase in temperature between 2.5 degrees and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. Furthermore, the study found the leading cause of global warming to be emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, and it noted that greenhouse gas accumulations in the earth's atmosphere was a result of human activities.

Within the scientific community, the controversy regarding has centered on the difference between surface air and upper air temperatures. Information collected since 1979 suggests that while the earth's surface temperature has increased by about a degree in the past century, the atmospheric temperature five miles above the earth's surface has indicated very little increase. Nevertheless, the

India Review 2016 Page 358 of 408 pages India panel stated that this discrepancy in temperature between surface and upper air does not invalidate the conclusion that global warming is taking place. Further, the panel noted that natural events, such as volcanic eruptions, can decrease the temperature in the upper atmosphere.

The major consequences of global warming potentially include the melting of the polar ice caps, which, in turn, contribute to the rise in sea levels. Many islands across the globe have already experienced a measurable loss of land as a result. Because global warming may increase the rate of evaporation, increased precipitation, in the form of stronger and more frequent storm systems, is another potential outcome. Other consequences of global warming may include the introduction and proliferation of new infectious diseases, loss of arable land (referred to as "desertification"), destructive changes to existing ecosystems, loss of biodiversity and the isolation of species, and concomitant adverse changes in the quality of human life.

International Policy Development in Regard to Global Warming:

Regardless of what the precise nature of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming may be, it seems that there is some degree of a connection between the phenomena. Any substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and global warming trends will likely involve systematic changes in industrial operations, the use of advanced energy sources and technologies, as well as global cooperation in implementing and regulating these transformations.

In this regard, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) stipulated the following objectives:

1. To stabilize "greenhouse gas" concentrations within the atmosphere, in such a manner that would preclude hazardous anthropogenic intervention into the existing biosphere and ecosystems of the world. This stabilization process would facilitate the natural adaptation of ecosystems to changes in climate.

2. To ensure and enable sustainable development and food production on a global scale.

*** See section on "International Environmental Agreements and Associations" for information related to international policies related to limiting greenhouse gases and controlling climate change emanating from historic summits at Kyoto, Copenhagen, Doha, and Paris. ***

2. Air Pollution

Long before global warming reared its head as a significant issue, those concerned about the

India Review 2016 Page 359 of 408 pages India environment and public health noted the deleterious effects of human-initiated combustion upon the atmosphere. Killer smogs from coal burning triggered acute health emergencies in London and other places. At a lower level of intensity motor vehicle, power plant, and industrial emissions impaired long-range visibility and probably had some chronic adverse consequences on the respiratory systems of persons breathing such air.

In time, scientists began associating the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides released from coal burning with significant acid deposition in the atmosphere, eventually falling as "acid rain." This phenomenon has severely degraded forestlands, especially in Europe and a few parts of the United States. It has also impaired some aquatic ecosystems and eaten away the surface of some human artifacts, such as marble monuments. Scrubber technology and conversion to cleaner fuels have enabled the level of industrial production to remain at least constant while significantly reducing acid deposition. Technologies aimed at cleaning the air and curtailing acid rain, soot, and smog may, nonetheless, boomerang as the perils of global warming become increasingly serious. In brief, these particulates act as sort of a sun shade -- comparable to the effect of volcanic eruptions on the upper atmosphere whereby periods of active volcanism correlate with temporarily cooler weather conditions. Thus, while the carbon dioxide releases that are an inevitable byproduct of combustion continue, by scrubbing the atmosphere of pollutants, an industrial society opens itself to greater insolation (penetration of the sun's rays and consequent heating), and consequently, it is likely to experience a correspondingly greater rise in ambient temperatures.

The health benefits of removing the sources of acid rain and smog are indisputable, and no one would recommend a return to previous conditions. Nevertheless, the problematic climatic effects of continually increasing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a major global environmental challenge, not as yet addressed adequately.

3. Ozone Depletion

The stratospheric ozone layer functions to prevent ultraviolet radiation from reaching the earth. Normally, stratospheric ozone is systematically disintegrated and regenerated through natural photochemical processes. The stratospheric ozone layer, however, has been depleted unnaturally as a result of anthropogenic (man-made) chemicals, most especially chlorine and bromide compounds such as chloroflorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and various industrial chemicals in the form of solvents, refrigerants, foaming agents, aerosol propellants, fire retardants, and fumigants. Ozone depletion is of concern because it permits a greater degree of ultraviolet-B radiation to reach the earth, which then increases the incidences of cancerous malignancies, cataracts, and human immune deficiencies. In addition, even in small doses, ozone depletion affects the ecosystem by disturbing food chains, agriculture, fisheries and other forms of biological diversity.

Transnational policies enacted to respond to the dangers of ozone depletion include the 1985

India Review 2016 Page 360 of 408 pages India

Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Montreal Protocol was subsequently amended in London in 1990, Copenhagen in 1992 and Vienna in 1995. By 1996, 155 countries had ratified the Montreal Protocol, which sets out a time schedule for the reduction (and eventual elimination) of ozone depleting substances (OPS), and bans exports and imports of ODS from and to non- participant countries.

In general, the Protocol stipulates that developed countries must eliminate halon consumption by 1994 and CFC consumption by 1996, while developing countries must eliminate these substances by 2010. Consumption of methyl bromide, which is used as a fumigant, was to be frozen at the 1995 in developed countries, and fully eliminated in 2010, while developing countries are to freeze consumption by 2002, based on average 1995-1998 consumption levels. Methyl chloroform is to be phased out by 2005. Under the Montreal Protocol, most ODS will be completely eliminated from use by 2010.

4. Land Degradation

In recent decades, land degradation in more arid regions of the world has become a serious concern. The problem, manifest as both "desertification" and "devegetation," is caused primarily by climate variability and human activities, such as "deforestation," excessive cultivation, overgrazing, and other forms of land resource exploitation. It is also exacerbated by inadequate irrigation practices. Although the effects of droughts on drylands have been temporary in the past, today, the productivity and sustainability of these lands have been severely compromised for the long term. Indeed, in every region of the world, land degradation has become an acute issue.

Desertification and Devegetation:

"Desertification" is a process of land degradation causing the soil to deteriorate, thus losing its nutrients and fertility, and eventually resulting in the loss of vegetation, known as "devegetation." As aforementioned, "desertification" and "devegetation" are caused by human activities, yet human beings are also the greatest casualties. Because these forms of land degradation affect the ability of the soil to produce crops, they concomitantly contribute to poverty. As population increases and demographic concentrations shift, the extent of land subject to stresses by those seeking to wrest subsistence from it has inexorably risen.

In response, the United Nations has formed the Convention to Combat Desertification-aimed at implementing programs to address the underlying causes of desertification, as well as measures to prevent and minimize its effects. Of particular significance is the formulation of policies on transboundary resources, such as areas around lakes and rivers. At a broader level, the Convention

India Review 2016 Page 361 of 408 pages India has established a Conference of Parties (COP), which includes all ratifying governments, for directing and advancing international action.

To ensure more efficacious use of funding, the Convention intends to reconfigure international aid to utilize a consultative and coordinated approach in the disbursement and expenditure of donor funds. In this way, local communities that are affected by desertification will be active participants in the solution-generation process. In-depth community education projects are envisioned as part of this new international aid program, and private donor financing is encouraged. Meanwhile, as new technologies are developed to deal with the problem of desertification, they need to be distributed for application across the world. Hence, the Convention calls for international cooperation in scientific research in this regard.

Desertification is a problem of sustainable development. It is directly connected to human challenges such as poverty, social and economic well-being and environmental protection as well. Broader environmental issues, such as climate change, biological diversity, and freshwater supplies, are indirectly related, so any effort to resolve this environmental challenge must entail coordinated research efforts and joint action.

Deforestation:

Deforestation is not a recent phenomenon. For centuries, human beings have cut down trees to clear space for land cultivation, or in order to use the wood for fuel. Over the last 200 years, and most especially after World War II, deforestation increased because the logging industry became a globally profitable endeavor, and so the clearing of forested areas was accelerated for the purposes of industrial development. In the long term, this intensified level of deforestation is considered problematic because the forest is unable to regenerate itself quickly. The deforestation that has occurred in tropical rainforests is seen as an especially serious concern, due to the perceived adverse effects of this process upon the entire global ecosystem.

The most immediate consequence of deforestation is soil degradation. Soil, which is necessary for the growth of vegetation, can be a fragile and vital property. Organically, an extensive evolution process must take place before soil can produce vegetation, yet at the same time, the effects of natural elements, such as wind and rain, can easily and quickly degrade this resource. This phenomenon is known as soil erosion. In addition, natural elements like wind and rain reduce the amount of fertile soil on the ground, making soil scarcity a genuine problem. When fertile topsoil that already exists is removed from the landscape in the process of deforestation, soil scarcity is further exacerbated. Equally significant is the fact that once land has been cleared so that the topsoil can be cultivated for crop production, not only are the nutrient reserves in the soil depleted, thus producing crops of inferior quality, but the soil structure itself becomes stressed and deteriorates further.

India Review 2016 Page 362 of 408 pages India

Another direct result of deforestation is flooding. When forests are cleared, removing the cover of vegetation, and rainfall occurs, the flow of water increases across the surface of land. When extensive water runoff takes place, the frequency and intensity of flooding increases. Other adverse effects of deforestation include the loss of wildlife and biodiversity within the ecosystem that supports such life forms.

At a broader level, tropical rainforests play a vital role in maintaining the global environmental system. Specifically, destruction of tropical rainforests affects the carbon dioxide cycle. When forests are destroyed by burning (or rotting), carbon dioxide is released into the air, thus contributing to an intensified "greenhouse effect." The increase in greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide is a major contributor to global warming, according to many environmental scientists. Indeed, trees themselves absorb carbon dioxide in the process of photosynthesis, so their loss also reduces the absorption of greenhouse gases.

Tropical rainforest destruction also adversely affects the nitrogen cycle. Nitrogen is a key nutrient for both plants and animals. Plants derive nitrogen from soil, while animals obtain it via nitrogen- enriched vegetation. This element is essential for the formation of amino acids, and thereby for proteins and biochemicals that all living things need for metabolism and growth. In the nitrogen cycle, vegetation acquires these essential proteins and biochemicals, and then cyclically returns them to the atmosphere and global ecosystem. Accordingly, when tropical rainforest ecosystems are compromised, not only is vegetation removed; the atmosphere is also affected and climates are altered. At a more immediate level, the biodiversity within tropical rainforests, including wildlife and insect species and a wealth of plant varieties, is depleted. Loss of rare plants is of particular concern because certain species as yet unknown and unused could likely yield many practical benefits, for instance as medicines.

As a result of the many challenges associated with deforestation, many environmental groups and agencies have argued for government policies on the sustainable development of forests by governments across the globe. While many countries have instituted national policies and programs aimed at reducing deforestation, and substantial research has been advanced in regard to sustainable and regenerative forestry development, there has been very little progress on an international level. Generally speaking, most tropical rainforests are located in developing and less developed countries, where economic growth is often dependent upon the exploitation of tropical rainforests. Timber resources as well as wildlife hunting tend to be particularly lucrative arenas.

In places such as the Amazon, where deforestation takes place for the construction of energy plants aimed at industrialization and economic development, there is an exacerbated effect on the environment. After forests are cleared in order to construct such projects, massive flooding usually ensues. The remaining trees then rot and decay in the wake of the flooding. As the trees deteriorate, their biochemical makeup becomes more acidic, producing poisonous substances such

India Review 2016 Page 363 of 408 pages India as hydrogen sulphide and methane gases. Acidified water subsequently corrodes the mechanical equipment and operations of the plants, which are already clogged by rotting wood after the floodwaters rise.

Deforestation generally arises from an economically plausible short-term motivation, but nonetheless poses a serious global concern because the effects go beyond national boundaries. The United Nations has established the World Commission on Forest and Sustainable Development. This body's task is to determine the optimal means of dealing with the issue of deforestation, without unduly affecting normal economic development, while emphasizing the global significance of protecting tropical forest ecosystems.

5. Water Resources

For all terrestrial fauna, including humans, water is the most immediate necessity to sustain life. As the population has increased and altered an ever-greater portion of the landscape from its natural condition, demand on water resources has intensified, especially with the development of industrialization and large-scale irrigation. The supply of freshwater is inherently limited, and moreover distributed unevenly across the earth's landmasses. Moreover, not just demand for freshwater but activities certain to degrade it are becoming more pervasive. By contrast, the oceans form a sort of "last wilderness," still little explored and in large part not seriously affected by human activity. However, coastal environments - the biologically richest part of the marine ecosystem-are experiencing major depletion due to human encroachment and over-exploitation.

Freshwater:

In various regions, for instance the Colorado River in the western United States, current withdrawals of river water for irrigation, domestic, and industrial use consume the entire streamflow so that almost no water flows into the sea at the river's mouth. Yet development is ongoing in many such places, implying continually rising demand for water. In some areas reliant on groundwater, aquifers are being depleted at a markedly faster rate than they are being replenished. An example is the San Joaquin Valley in California, where decades of high water withdrawals for agriculture have caused land subsidence of ten meters or more in some spots. Naturally, the uncertainty of future water supplies is particularly acute in arid and semi-arid regions. Speculation that the phenomenon of global warming will alter geographic and seasonal rainfall patterns adds further uncertainty.

Water conservation measures have great potential to alleviate supply shortages. Some city water systems are so old and beset with leaking pipes that they lose as much water as they meter. Broad- scale irrigation could be replaced by drip-type irrigation, actually enhancing the sustainability of

India Review 2016 Page 364 of 408 pages India agriculture. In many areas where heavy irrigation has been used for decades, the result is deposition of salts and other chemicals in the soil such that the land becomes unproductive for farming and must be abandoned.

Farming is a major source of water pollution. Whereas restrictions on industrial effluents and other "point sources" are relatively easy to implement, comparable measures to reform hydraulic practices at farms and other "nonpoint sources" pose a significantly knottier challenge. Farm- caused water pollution takes the following main forms:

- Nitrate pollution found in wells in intensive farming areas as a consequence of heavy fertilizer use is a threat to human health. The most serious danger is to infants, who by ingesting high-nitrate water can contract methemoglobinemia, sometimes called "blue baby syndrome," a potentially fatal condition.

- Fertilizer runoff into rivers and lakes imparts unwanted nutrients that cause algae growth and eventual loss of oxygen in the body of water, degrading its ability to support fish and other desirable aquatic life.

- Toxic agricultural chemicals - insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides - are detectable in some aquifers and waterways.

In general, it is much easier to get a pollutant into water than to retrieve it out. Gasoline additives, dry cleaning chemicals, other industrial toxins, and in a few areas radionucleides have all been found in water sources intended for human use. The complexity and long time scale of subterranean hydrological movements essentially assures that pollutants already deposited in aquifers will continue to turn up for decades to come. Sophisticated water treatment processes are available, albeit expensive, to reclaim degraded water and render it fit for human consumption. Yet source protection is unquestionably a more desirable alternative.

In much of the developing world, and even some low-income rural enclaves of the developed world, the population lacks ready access to safe water. Surface water and shallow groundwater supplies are susceptible to contamination from untreated wastewater and failing septic tanks, as well as chemical hazards. The occurrence of waterborne disease is almost certainly greatly underreported.

Marine Resources:

Coastal areas have always been desirable places for human habitation, and population pressure on them continues to increase. Many types of water degradation that affect lakes and rivers also affect coastal zones: industrial effluents, untreated or partially treated sewage, nutrient load from

India Review 2016 Page 365 of 408 pages India agriculture figure prominently in both cases. Prospects for more extreme storms as a result of global warming, as well as the pervasiveness of poorly planned development in many coastal areas, forebode that catastrophic hurricanes and landslides may increase in frequency in the future. Ongoing rise in sea levels will force remedial measures and in some cases abandonment of currently valuable coastal property.

Fisheries over much of the globe have been overharvested, and immediate conservation measures are required to preserve stocks of many species. Many governments subsidized factory-scale fishing fleets in the 1970s and 1980s, and the resultant catch increase evidently surpassed a sustainable level. It is uncertain how much of the current decline in fish stocks stems from overharvesting and how much from environmental pollution. The deep ocean remains relatively unaffected by human activity, but continental shelves near coastlines are frequently seriously polluted, and these close-to-shore areas are the major biological nurseries for food fish and the smaller organisms they feed on.

6. Environmental Toxins

Toxic chemical pollution exploded on the public consciousness with disclosure of spectacularly polluted industrial areas such as Love Canal near Buffalo, New York. There is no question that pollutants such as organophosphates or radionucleides can be highly deleterious to health, but evidence to date suggests that seriously affected areas are a localized rather than universal problem.

While some explore the possibilities for a lifestyle that fully eschews use of modern industrial chemicals, the most prevalent remediative approach is to focus on more judicious use. The most efficient chemical plants are now able to contain nearly all toxic byproducts of their production processes within the premises, minimizing the release of such substances into the environment. Techniques such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) dictate limited rather than broadcast use of pesticides: application only when needed using the safest available chemical, supplemented as much as possible with nontoxic controls.

While heightened public awareness and growing technical sophistication suggest a hopeful outlook on limiting the damage from manmade environmental toxins, one must grant that previous incidents of their misuse and mishandling have already caused environmental damage that will have to be dealt with for many years to come. In the case of the most hazardous radioactive substances, the time scale for successful remediation actually extends beyond that of the recorded history of civilization. Moreover, in this era of high population density and rapid economic growth, quotidian activities such as the transport of chemicals will occasionally, seemingly inevitably result in accidents with adverse environmental consequences.

India Review 2016 Page 366 of 408 pages India

7. "Islandization" and Biodiversity

With increased awareness regarding the adverse effects of unregulated hunting and habitat depletion upon wildlife species and other aspects of biodiversity, large-scale efforts across the globe have been initiated to reduce and even reverse this trend.

In every region of the world, many species of wildlife and areas of biodiversity have been saved from extinction. Nationally, many countries have adopted policies aimed at preservation and conservation of species, and one of the most tangible measures has been the proliferation of protected habitats. Such habitats exist in the form of wildlife reserves, marine life reserves, and other such areas where biodiversity can be protected from external encroachment and exploitation.

Despite these advances in wildlife and biodiversity protection, further and perhaps more intractable challenges linger. Designated reserves, while intended to prevent further species decline, exist as closed territories, fragmented from other such enclaves and disconnected from the larger ecosystem. This environmental scenario is referred to as "islandization." Habitat reserves often serve as oversized zoos or game farms, with landscapes and wildlife that have effectively been "tamed" to suit. Meanwhile, the larger surrounding ecosystem continues to be seriously degraded and transformed, while within the islandized habitat, species that are the focus of conservation efforts may not have sufficient range and may not be able to maintain healthy genetic variability.

As a consequence, many conservationists and preservationists have demanded that substantially larger portions of land be withheld as habitat reserves, and a network of biological corridors to connect continental reserves be established. While such efforts to combat islandization have considerable support in the United States, how precisely such a program would be instituted, especially across national boundaries, remains a matter of debate. International conservationists and preservationists say without a network of reserves a massive loss of biodiversity will result.

The concept of islandization illustrates why conservation and preservation of wildlife and biodiversity must consider and adopt new, broader strategies. In the past, conservation and preservation efforts have been aimed at specific species, such as the spotted owl and grizzly bear in North America, the Bengal tiger in Southeast Asia, the panda in China, elephants in Africa. Instead, the new approach is to simultaneously protect many and varied species that inhabit the same ecosystem. This method, referred to as "bio-regional conservation," may more efficaciously generate longer-term and more far-reaching results precisely because it is aimed at preserving entire ecosystems, and all the living things within.

More About Biodiversity Issues:

This section is directly taken from the United Nations Environmental Program: "Biodiversity

India Review 2016 Page 367 of 408 pages India

Assessment"

The Global Biodiversity Assessment, completed by 1500 scientists under the auspices of United Nations Environmental Program in 1995, updated what is known (or unknown) about global biological diversity at the ecosystem, species and genetic levels. The assessment was uncertain of the total number of species on Earth within an order of magnitude. Of its working figure of 13 million species, only 13 percent are scientifically described. Ecological community diversity is also poorly known, as is its relationship to biological diversity, and genetic diversity has been studied for only a small number of species. The effects of human activities on biodiversity have increased so greatly that the rate of species extinctions is rising to hundreds or thousands of times the background level. These losses are driven by increasing demands on species and their habitats, and by the failure of current market systems to value biodiversity adequately. The Assessment calls for urgent action to reverse these trends.

There has been a new recognition of the importance of protecting marine and aquatic biodiversity. The first quantitative estimates of species losses due to growing coral reef destruction predict that almost 200,000 species, or one in five presently contributing to coral reef biodiversity, could die out in the next 40 years if human pressures on reefs continue to increase.

Since Rio, many countries have improved their understanding of the status and importance of their biodiversity, particularly through biodiversity country studies such as those prepared under the auspices of UNEP/GEF. The United Kingdom identified 1250 species needing monitoring, of which 400 require action plans to ensure their survival. Protective measures for biodiversity, such as legislation to protect species, can prove effective. In the USA, almost 40 percent of the plants and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act are now stable or improving as a direct result of recovery efforts. Some African countries have joined efforts to protect threatened species through the 1994 Lusaka Agreement, and more highly migratory species are being protected by specialized cooperative agreements among range states under the Bonn Agreement.

There is an emerging realization that a major part of conservation of biological diversity must take place outside of protected areas and involve local communities. The extensive agricultural areas occupied by small farmers contain much biodiversity that is important for sustainable food production. Indigenous agricultural practices have been and continue to be important elements in the maintenance of biodiversity, but these are being displaced and lost. There is a new focus on the interrelationship between agrodiversity conservation and sustainable use and development practices in smallholder agriculture, with emphasis on use of farmers' knowledge and skills as a source of information for sustainable farming.

Perhaps even more important than the loss of biodiversity is the transformation of global biogeochemical cycles, the reduction in the total world biomass, and the decrease in the biological productivity of the planet. While quantitative measurements are not available, the eventual

India Review 2016 Page 368 of 408 pages India economic and social consequences may be so significant that the issue requires further attention.

******

Specific sources used for this section:

Bendall, Roger. 1996. "Biodiversity: the follow up to Rio". The Globe 30:4-5, April 1996.

Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Implications. 1995. Special issue on "People, Land Management and Environmental Change", Vol. 3, No. 4, September 1995.

Golubev, Genady N. (Moscow University) In litt. 29 June 1996.

Heywood, V.H. (ed.). 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Heywood, V.H. 1996. "The Global Biodiversity Assessment". The Globe, 30:2-4, April 1996.

Reaka-Kudla, Marjorie. 1996. Paper presented at American Association for Advancement of Science, February 1996. Quoted in Pain, Stephanie. "Treasures lost in reef madness". New Scientist, 17 February 1996.

Uitto, Juha I., and Akiko Ono (eds). 1996. Population, Land Management and Environmental Change. The United Nations University, Tokyo.

USFWS. 1994. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report to Congress, cited in news release 21 July

India Review 2016 Page 369 of 408 pages India

1994.

Online resources used generally in the Environmental Overview:

Environmental Protection Agency Global Warming Site. URL: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming

Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations: Forestry. URL: http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/sofo/en/

Global Warming Information Page. URL: http://globalwarming.org

United Nations Environmental Program. URL: http://www.unep.org/GEO/GEO_Products/Assessment_Reports/

United Nations Global Environmental Outlook. URL: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/

Note on Edition Dates:

The edition dates for textual resources are noted above because they were used to formulate the original content. We also have used online resources (cited above) to update coverage as needed.

Information Resources

For more information about environmental concepts, CountryWatch recommends the following resources:

The United Nations Environmental Program Network (with country profiles)

The United Nations Environment Program on Climate Change

The United Nations Environmental Program on Waters and Oceans

India Review 2016 Page 370 of 408 pages India

The United Nations Environmental Program on Forestry: "Forests in Flux"

FAO "State of the World's Forests"

World Resources Institute.

Harvard University Center for Health and the Global Environment

The University of Wisconsin Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment http://sage.aos.wisc.edu/

International Environmental Agreements and Associations

International Policy Development in Regard to Global Warming:

Introduction

Regardless of what the precise nature of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming may be, it seems that there is some degree of a connection between the phenomena. Any substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and global warming trends will likely involve systematic changes in industrial operations, the use of advanced energy sources and technologies, as well as global cooperation in implementing and regulating these transformations.

In this regard, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) stipulated the following objectives:

India Review 2016 Page 371 of 408 pages India

1. To stabilize "greenhouse gas" concentrations within the atmosphere, in such a manner that would preclude hazardous anthropogenic intervention into the existing biosphere and ecosystems of the world. This stabilization process would facilitate the natural adaptation of ecosystems to changes in climate.

2. To ensure and enable sustainable development and food production on a global scale.

Following are two discusssions regarding international policies on the environment, followed by listings of international accords.

Special Entry: The Kyoto Protocol

The UNFCCC was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and entered into force in 1994. Over 175 parties were official participants.

Meanwhile, however, many of the larger, more industrialized nations failed to reach the emissions' reduction targets, and many UNFCCC members agreed that the voluntary approach to reducing emissions had not been successful. As such, UNFCCC members reached a consensus that legally binding limits were necessitated, and agreed to discuss such a legal paradigm at a meeting in Kyoto, Japan in 1997. At that meeting, the UNFCCC forged the Kyoto Protocol. This concord is the first legally binding international agreement that places limits on emissions from industrialized countries. The major greenhouse gas emissions addressed in the Kyoto Protocol include carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and methane.

The provisions of the Kyoto Protocol stipulate that economically advanced nations must reduce their combined emissions of greenhouse gases, by approximately five percent from their 1990 levels, before the 2008-2010 deadline. Countries with the highest carbon dioxide emissions, such as the United States (U.S.), many of the European Union (EU) countries, and Japan, are to reduce emissions by a scale of 6 to 8 percent. All economically advanced nations must show "demonstrable progress" by 2005. In contrast, no binding limits or timetable have been set on developing countries. Presumably, this distinction is due to the fact that most developing countries - - with the obvious exceptions of India and China -- simply do not emit as many greenhouse gases as do more industrially advanced countries. Meanwhile, these countries are entrenched in the process of economic development.

Regardless of the aforementioned reasoning, there has been strong opposition against the asymmetrical treatment assigned to emissions limits among developed and developing countries. Although this distinction might be regarded as unfair in principle, associations such as the Alliance of Small Island States have been vocal in expressing how global warming -- a result of greenhouse gas emissions - has contributed to the rise in sea level, and thus deleteriously affected their very

India Review 2016 Page 372 of 408 pages India existence as island nation states. For this reason, some parties have suggested that economically advanced nations, upon returning to their 1990 levels, should be required to further reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by a deadline of 2005. In response, interested parties have observed that even if such reductions were undertaken by economically advanced nations, they would not be enough to completely control global warming. Indeed, a reduction in the rate of fossil fuel usage by developing nations would also be necessary to have substantial ameliorative effect on global warming. Indeed, a reduction in the rate of fossil fuel usage by developing nations would also be necessary to have substantial ameliorative effect on global warming.

As such, the Protocol established a "Clean Development Mechanism" which permits developed countries to invest in projects aimed at reducing emissions within developing countries in return for credit for the reductions. Ostensibly, the objective of this mechanism is to curtail emissions in developing countries without unduly penalizing them for their economic development. Under this model, the countries with more potential emissions credits could sell them to other signatories of the Kyoto Protocol, whose emissions are forecast to significantly rise in the next few years. Should this trading of emissions credits take place, it is estimated that the Kyoto Protocol's emissions targets could still be met.

In 1999, the International Energy Outlook projected that Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Newly Independent States, as well as parts of Asia, are all expected to show a marked decrease in their level of energy-related carbon emissions in 2010. Nations with the highest emissions, specifically, the U.S., the EU and Japan, are anticipated to reduce their emissions by up to 8 percent by 2012. By 2000, however, the emissions targets were not on schedule for achievement. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates forecast that by 2010, there will be a 34 percent increase in carbon emissions from the 1990 levels, in the absence of major shifts in policy, economic growth, energy prices, and consumer trends. Despite this assessment in the U.S., international support for the Kyoto Protocol remained strong, especially among European countries and island states, who view the pact as one step in the direction away from reliance on fossil fuels and other sources of greenhouse gases.

In 2001, U.S. President, George W. Bush, rejected his country's participation in the Kyoto Protocol, saying that the costs imposed on the global economic system, and especially, on the US, overshadowed the benefits of the Protocol. He also cited the unfair burden on developed nations to reduce emissions, as another primary reasons for withdrawal from the international pact, as well as insufficient evidence regarding the science of global warming. Faced with impassioned international disapproval for his position, the U.S. president stated that his administration remained interested in dealing with the matter of global warming, but would endorse alternative measures to combat the problem, such as voluntary initiatives limiting emissions. Critics of Bush's position, however, have noted that it was the failure of voluntary initiatives to reduce emissions following the Rio Summit that led to the establishment of the Kyoto Protocol in the first place.

India Review 2016 Page 373 of 408 pages India

In the wake of the Bush administration's decision, many participant countries resigned themselves to the reality that the goals of the Kyoto Protocol might not be achieved without U.S. involvement. Nevertheless, in Bonn, Germany, in July 2001, the remaining participant countries struck a political compromise on some of the key issues and sticking points, and planned to move forward with the Protocol, irrespective of the absence of the U.S. The key compromise points included the provision for countries to offset their targets with carbon sinks (these are areas of forest and farmland which can absorb carbon through the process of photosynthesis). Another compromise point within the broader Bonn Agreement was the reduction of emissions cuts of six gases from over 5 percent to a more achievable 2 percent. A third key change was the provision of funding for less wealthy countries to adopt more progressive technologies.

In late October and early November 2001, the UNFCC's 7th Conference of the Parties met in Marrakesh, Morocco, to finalize the measures needed to make the Kyoto Protocol operational. Although the UNFCC projected that ratification of the Protocol would make it legally binding within a year, many critics noted that the process had fallen short of implementing significant changes in policy that would be necessary to actually stop or even slow climate change. They also maintained that the absence of U.S. participation effectively rendered the Protocol into being a political exercise without any substance, either in terms of transnational policy or in terms of environmental concerns.

The adoption of the compromises ensconced within the Bonn Agreement had been intended to make the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol more palatable to the U.S. In this regard, it failed to achieve its objective as the Bush administration continued to eschew participation in the international accord. Still, however, the Bonn Agreement did manage to render a number of other positive outcomes. Specifically, in 2002, key countries, such as Russia, Japan and Canada agreed to ratify the protocol, bringing the number of signatories to 178. The decision by key countries to ratify the protocol was regarded as "the kiss of life" by observers.

By 2005, on the eve of a climate change conference in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was hoping to deal with the problems of climate change beyond the provisions set forth in the Kyoto Protocol. Acknowledging that the Kyoto Protocol could not work in its current form, Blair wanted to open the discussion for a new climate change plan.

Blair said that although most of the world had signed on to Kyoto, the protocol could not meet any of its practical goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions without the participation of the United States, the world's largest polluter. He also noted that any new agreement would have to include India and China -- significant producers of greenhouse gas emissions, but exempt from Kyoto because they have been classified as developing countries. Still, he said that progress on dealing with climate change had been stymied by "a reluctance to face up to reality and the practical action needed to tackle problem."

India Review 2016 Page 374 of 408 pages India

Blair also touted the "huge opportunities" in technology and pointed toward the possibilities offered by wind, solar and nuclear power, along with fuel cell technology, eco-friendly biofuels, and carbon capture and storage which could generate low carbon power. Blair also asserted that his government was committed to achieving its domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2010.

In the United States, President George W. Bush has said that global warming remained a debatable issue and despite conclusions reached by his own Environmental Protection Agency, he has not agreed with the conclusion that global warming and climate change are linked with human activities. Bush has also refused to ratify Kyoto on the basis of its economic costs.

Australia, an ally of the United States, has taken a similarly dim view of the Kyoto Protocol. Ahead of the November 2005 climate change meeting in Canada in which new goals for the protocol were to be discussed, Australia 's Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, said that negotiating new greenhouse gas emission levels for the Kyoto Protocol would be a waste of time. Campbell said, "There is a consensus that the caps, targets and timetables approach is flawed. If we spend the next five years arguing about that, we'll be fiddling and negotiating while Rome burns." Campbell, like the Bush administration, has also advocated a system of voluntary action in which industry takes up new technologies rather than as a result of compelling the reduction of emissions. But the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has called on its government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, to establish a system of emissions trading, and to set binding limits on emissions. Interestingly, although it did not sign on to Kyoto , Australia was expected to meet its emissions target by 2012 (an 8 percent increase in 1990 levels in keeping with the country's reliance on coal). But this success has nothing to do with new technologies and is due to state- based regulations on land clearing.

Note: The Kyoto Protocol calls for developed nations to cut greenhouse emissions by 5.2 percent of 1990 levels by 2012.

Special Entry: Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen (2009) --

In December 2009, the United Nations Climate Change Summit opened in the Danish capital of Copenhagen. The summit was scheduled to last from Dec. 7-18, 2009. Delegates from more than 190 countries were in attendance, and approximately 100 world leaders, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and United States President Barack Obama, were expected to participate. At issue was the matter of new reductions targets on greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Despite earlier fears that little concurrence would come from the conference, effectively pushing significant actions forward to a 2010 conference in Mexico City, negotiators were now reporting that the talks were productive and several key countries, such as South Africa, had pledged to

India Review 2016 Page 375 of 408 pages India reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The two main issues that could still lead to cleavages were questions of agreement between the industrialized countries and the developing countries of the world, as well as the overall effectiveness of proposals in seriously addressing the perils of climate change.

On Dec. 9, 2009, four countries -- the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico and Norway -- presented a document outlining ideas for raising and managing billions of dollars, which would be intended to help vulnerable countries dealing with the perils of climate change. Described as a "green fund," the concept could potentially help small island states at risk because of the rise in sea level. Bangladesh identified itself as a potential recipient of an assistance fund, noting that as a country plagued by devastating floods, it was particularly hard-hit by climate change. The "green fund" would fall under the rubric of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, for which developed countries have been committed to quantifying their emission reduction targets, and also to providing financial and technical support to developing countries.

The United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico and Norway also called for the creation of a new legal treaty that would replace the Kyoto Protocol. This new treaty, which could go into force in 2012, would focus largely on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. But Australia went even further in saying that the successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, should be one with provisions covering all countries. Such a move would be a departure from the structure of the Kyoto Protocol, which contained emissions targets for industrialized countries due to the prevailing view that developed countries had a particular historic responsibility to be accountable for climate change. More recently, it has become apparent that substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions demanded by scientists would only come to pass with the participation also of significant developing nation states, such as China and India. Indeed, one of the most pressing critiques of the Kyoto Protocol was that it was a "paper tiger" that failed to address the impact of the actions of emerging economies like China and India, with its focus on the developed economies.

Now, in 2009, China -- as the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter -- was responding this dubious distinction by vocalizing its criticism of the current scenario and foregrounding its new commitments. Ahead of the Copenhagen summit, China had announced it would reduce the intensity of its carbon emissions per unit of its GDP in 2020 by 40 to 45 percent against 2005 levels. With that new commitment at hand, China was now accusing the United States and the European Union of shirking their own responsibilities by setting weak targets for greenhouse gas emissions cuts. Senior Chinese negotiator, Su Wei, characterized the goals of the world's second largest greenhouse gas emitter -- the United States -- as "not notable," and the European Union's target as "not enough." Su Wei also took issue with Japan for setting implausible preconditions.

On Dec. 11, 2009, China demanded that developed and wealthy countries in Copenhagen should help deliver a real agreement on climate change by delivering on their promises to reduce carbon emissions and provide financial support for developing countries to adapt to global warming. In so doing, China's Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said his country was hoping that a "balanced

India Review 2016 Page 376 of 408 pages India outcome" would emerge from the discussions at the summit. Echoing the position of the Australian government, He Yafei spoke of a draft agreement as follows: "The final document we're going to adopt needs to be taking into account the needs and aspirations of all countries, particularly the most vulnerable ones."

China's Vice Foreign Minister emphasized the fact that climate change was "a matter of survival" for developing countries, and accordingly, such countries need wealthier and more developed countries to accentuate not only their pledges of emissions reduction targets, but also their financial commitments under the aforementioned United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. To that end, scientists and leaders of small island states in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, have highlighted the existential threat posed by global warming and the concomitant rise in sea level.

China aside, attention was also on India -- another major player in the developing world and a country with an industrializing economy that was impacting the environment. At issue was the Indian government's decision to set a carbon intensity target, which would slow emissions growth by up to 25 percent by the 2020 deadline. This strong position was resisted by some elements in India, who argued that their country should not be taking such a strong position when developed wealthy countries were yet to show accountability for their previous commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The matter grew so heated that the members of the opposition stormed out of the parliament in protest as Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh defended the policy. But the political pressure at home in India was leaving the Indian delegation in Copenhagen in a state of chaos as well. In fact, India's top environmental negotiator refused to travel to Copenhagen in protest of the government's newly-announced stance.

China and India were joined by Brazil and South Africa in the crafting of a draft document calling for a new global climate treaty to be completed by June 2010. Of concern has been the realization that there was insufficient time to find concurrence on a full legal treaty, which would leave countries only with a politically-binding text by the time the summit at Copenhagen closed. But Guyana's leader, President Bharrat Jagdeo, warned that the summit in Denmark would be classified as a failure unless a binding document was agreed upon instead of just political consensus. He urged his cohorts to act with purpose saying, "Never before have science, economics, geo-strategic self-interest and politics intersected in such a way on an issue that impacts everyone on the planet."

Likewise, Tuvalu demanded that legally binding agreements emerge from Copenhagen. Its proposal was supported by many of the vulnerable countries, from small island states and sub- Saharan Africa, all of whom warned of the catastrophic impact of climate change on their citizens. Tuvalu also called for more aggressive action, such as an amendment to the 1992 agreement, which would focus on sharp greenhouse gas emissions and the accepted rise in temperatures, due to the impact the rise in seas. The delegation from Kiribati joined the call by

India Review 2016 Page 377 of 408 pages India drawing attention to the fact that one village had to be abandoned due to waist-high water, and more such effects were likely to follow. Kiribati's Foreign Secretary, Tessie Lambourne, warned that the people of Kiribati could well be faced with no homeland in the future saying, "Nobody in this room would want to leave their homeland." But despite such impassioned pleas and irrespective of warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the rise in sea level from melting polar ice caps would deleteriously affect low-lying atolls such as such as Tuvalu and Kiribati in the Pacific, and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, the oil-giant Saudi Arabia was able to block this move.

Meanwhile, within the developed countries, yet another power struggle was brewing. The European Union warned it would only agree to raise its target of 20 percent greenhouse gas emissions reductions to 30 percent if the United States demonstrated that it would do more to reduce its own emissions. It was unknown if such pressure would yield results. United States President Barack Obama offered a "provisional" 2020 target of 17 percent reductions, noting that he could not offer greater concessions at Copenhagen due to resistance within the United States Congress, which was already trying to pass a highly controversial "cap and trade" emissions legislation. However, should that emissions trading bill fail in the Senate, the United States Environment Protection Agency's declaration that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health and the environment was expected to facilitate further regulations and limits on power plants and factories at the national level. These moves could potentially strengthen the Obama administration's offering at Copenhagen. As well, President Obama also signaled that he would be willing to consider the inclusion of international forestry credits.

Such moves indicated willingness by the Obama administration to play a more constructive role on the international environmental scene than its predecessor, the Bush administration. Indeed, ahead of his arrival at the Copenhagen summit, President Barack Obama's top environmental advisors promised to work on a substantial climate change agreement. To that end, United States Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said at a press conference, "We are seeking robust engagement with all of our partners around the world." But would this pro- engagement assertion yield actual results?

By Dec. 12, 2009, details related to a draft document prepared by Michael Zammit Cutajar, the head of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action, were released at the Copenhagen climate conference. Included in the document were calls for countries to make major reductions in carbon emissions over the course of the next decade. According to the Washington Post, industrialized countries were called on to make cuts of between 25 percent and 40 percent below 1990 levels -- reductions that were far more draconian than the United States was likely to accept. As discussed above, President Obama had offered a provisional reduction target of 17 percent. The wide gap between the released draft and the United States' actual stated position suggested there was much more negotiating in the offing if a binding agreement could be forged, despite the Obama administration's claims that it was seeking greater engagement on this issue.

India Review 2016 Page 378 of 408 pages India

In other developments, the aforementioned call for financial support of developing countries to deal with the perils of climate change was partly answered by the European Union on Dec. 11, 2009. The European bloc pledged an amount of 2.4 billion euros (US$3.5 billion) annually from 2010 to 2012. Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren of Sweden -- the country that holds the rotating presidency of the European Union at the time of the summit -- put his weight behind the notion of a "legally binding deal." Meanwhile, Yvo de Boer, a top United Nations climate change official, focused less on the essence of the agreement and more on tangible action and effects saying, "Copenhagen will only be a success if it delivers significant and immediate action that begins the day the conference ends."

The division between developed and developing countries in Copenhagen reached new heights on Dec. 14, 2009, when some of the poor and less developed countries launched a boycott at the summit. The move, which was spurred by African countries but backed by China and India, appeared to be geared toward redirecting attention and primary responsibility to the wealthier and more industrialized countries. The impasse was resolved after the wealthier and more industrialized countries offered assurances that they did not intend on shirking from their commitments to reducing greenhouse gases. As a result, the participating countries ceased the boycott.

Outside the actual summit, thousands of protestors had gathered to demand crucial global warming, leading to clashes between police and demonstrators elsewhere in the Danish capital city. There were reports of scattered violence across Copenhagen and more than 1,000 people were arrested.

Nevertheless, by the second week of the climate change summit, hopes of forging a strong deal were eroding as developed and developing nations remained deadlocked on sharing cuts in greenhouse gases, and particularly on the matters of financing and temperature goals. In a bid to shore up support for a new climate change, United States President Barack Obama joined other world leaders in Copenhagen. On Dec. 14, 2009, there was a standoff brewing between the United States and China. At issue was China's refusal to accept international monitoring of its expressed targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The United States argued that China's opposition to verification could be a deal-breaker.

By the close of the summit, the difficult process eventually resulted in some consensus being cultivated. A draft text called for $100 billion a year by 2020 to assist poor nations cope with climate change, while aiming to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius compared with pre- industrial levels. The deal also included specific targets for developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and called for reductions by developing countries as a share of their economies. Also included in the agreement was a mechanism to verify compliance. The details of the agreement were supported by President Barack Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

India Review 2016 Page 379 of 408 pages India

This draft would stand as an interim agreement, with a legally-binding international pact unlikely to materialize until 2010. In this way, the summit in Copenhagen failed to achieve its central objective, which was to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.

Editor's Note

In the background of these developments was the growing global consciousness related to global warming and climate change. Indeed, as the Copenhagen summit was ongoing, it was clear there was enormous concurrence on the significance of the stakes with an editorial on the matter of climate change being published in 56 newspapers in 45 countries. That editorial warned that without global action, climate change would "ravage our planet." Meanwhile, a global survey taken by Globescan showed that concern over global warming had exponentially increased from 1998 -- when only 20 percent of respondents believed it to be a serious problem -- to 64 percent in 2009. Such survey data, however, was generated ahead of the accusations by climate change skeptics that some climate scientists may have overstated the case for global warming, based on emails derived in an illicit manner from a British University.

Special Entry: Climate change talks in Doha in Qatar extend life of Kyoto Protocol (2012)

December 2012 saw climate talks ensue in the Qatari city of Doha as representatives from countries across the world gathered to discuss the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. The summit yielded results with decisions made (1) to extend the Kyoto Protocol until 2020, and (2) for wealthier countries to compensate poorer countries for the losses and damage incurred as a result of climate change.

In regards to the second matter, Malia Talakai of Nauru, a leading negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States, explained the necessity of the compensation package as follows: “We are trying to say that if you pollute you must help us.”

This measure was being dubbed the "Loss and Damage" mechanism, and was being linked with United States President Barack Obama's request for $60 billion from Congress to deal with the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy months before. The sight of a hurricane bearing down on the northern Atlantic seaboard, along with the reality of the scope of reconstruction, appeared to have illustrated the economic costs of climate change -- not so much as a distant environmental issue -- but as a danger to the quotidian lives of people. Still, there was blame to be placed on the United States and European countries -- some of world's largest emitters -- for failing to do more to reduce emissions.

To that latter end, there was in fact little progress made on the central issue of reducing greenhouse

India Review 2016 Page 380 of 408 pages India gas emissions. Had those emissions been reduced, there would have been less of a need to financially deal with the devastation caused by climate change. One interpretation was that the global community was accepting the fact that industrialization was contributing to global warming, which had deleterious effects on the polar ice caps and concomitantly on the rise of sea level, with devastating effects for small island nations. Thus, wealthier countries were willing to pay around $10 billion a year through 2020, effectively in "damages," to the poor countries that could be viewed as the "collateral damage" of industrial progress. But damages today could potentially be destruction tomorrow, leaving in place the existential challenges and burdens to be born by some of the world's smallest and least wealthy island countries.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the representative for the small island nation states at the Doha summit responded with ire, characterizing the lack of progress on reducing emissions as follows: "We see the package before us as deeply deficient in mitigation (carbon cuts) and finance. It's likely to lock us on the trajectory to a 3,4,5C rise in global temperatures, even though we agreed to keep the global average temperature rise of 1.5C to ensure survival of all islands. There is no new finance (for adapting to climate change and getting clean energy) -- only promises that something might materialize in the future. Those who are obstructive need to talk not about how their people will live, but whether our people will live."

Indeed, in most small island countries not just in the Pacific, but also the Caribbean and Indian Ocean, ecological concerns and the climate crisis have been dominant themes with dire life and death consequences looming in the background for their people. Small island nations in these region are already at risk from the rise of sea-level, tropical cyclones, floods. But their very livelihoods of fishing and subsistence farming were also at risk as a result of ecological and environmental changes. Increasingly high storm surges can wipe out entire villages and contaminate water supplies. Accordingly, the very existence of island nations, such as Kiribati and Tuvalu, are at severe risk of being obliterated from the map. Yet even with the existential threat of being wiped off the map in the offing, the international community has been either slow or restrictive in its efforts to deal with global warming, climate change, economic and ecological damage, as well as the emerging global challenge of environmental refugees.

A 2012 report from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Pacific Regional Environment Program underlined the concerns of small island nations and their people as it concluded that the livelihoods of approximately 10 million people in Pacific island communities were increasingly vulnerable to climate change. In fact, low-lying islands in that region would likely confront losses of up to 18 percent of gross domestic product due to climate change, according to the report. The report covers 21 countries and territories, including Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa and Tonga, and recommended environmental legislation intended to deal with the climate crisis facing the small island countries particularly. As noted by David Sheppard, the director general of the Pacific Regional Environment Program that co-sponsored this study: “The findings... emphasize the need more than ever to raise the bar through collective actions that address the

India Review 2016 Page 381 of 408 pages India region's environmental needs at all levels."

Regardless of the failures of the summit in Qatar (discussed above), the meeting did facilitate a process starting in 2015, which would bind both wealthy and poor countries together in the mission of forging a new binding treaty that would replace the Kyoto Protocol and tackle the central causes of climate change.

For more information on the threats faced in small island nations by climate change and the measures being undertaken to lobby for international action, please see the Alliance for Small Island States available online at the URL: http://aosis.org/

Special Report

COP 21 summit in Paris ends with historic agreement to tackle climate change; rare international consensus formed on environmental crisis facing the planet (2015) --

In mid-December 2015, the highly-anticipated United Nations climate conference of parties (COP) in Paris, France, ended with a historic agreement. In fact, it would very likely be understood as the most significant international agreement signed by all the recognized countries of the world since the Cold War. Accordingly, the Paris Agreement was being distinguished as the first multilateral pact that would compel all countries across the world to cut its carbon emissions -- one of the major causes of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming, and its deleterious effects ranging from the dangerous rise in sea level to catastrophic climate change.

The accord, which was dubbed to be the "Paris Agreement," was the work of rigorous diplomacy and fervent environmental advocacy, and it aimed to address the climate change crisis facing the planet. As many as 195 countries were represented in the negotiations that led to the landmark climate deal. Indeed, it was only after weeks of passionate debate that international concurrence was reached in addressing the environmental challenges confronting the world, with particular attention to moving beyond fossil fuels and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The success of the COP 21 summit in Paris and the emergence of the landmark Paris Agreement was, to some extent, attributed to the efforts of France's Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius who presided over the negotiations. The French foreign minister's experience and credentials as a seasoned diplomat and respected statesman paid dividends. He skillfully guided the delegates from almost 200 countries and interest groups along the negotiations process, with ostensibly productive results and a reasonably robust deal to show for it.

On Dec. 12, 2015, French Foreign Minister Fabius officially adopted the agreement, declaring: "I

India Review 2016 Page 382 of 408 pages India now invite the COP to adopt the decision entitled Paris Agreement outlined in the document. Looking out to the room I see that the reaction is positive, I see no objections. The Paris agreement is adopted." Once Foreign Minister Fabius' gavel was struck, symbolically inaugurating the Paris Agreement into force, the COP delegate rushed to their feet with loud and bouyant cheers as well as thunderous applause.

In general, the Paris Agreement was being hailed as a victory for enviromental activists and a triumph for international diplomats, while at the same time being understood as simply an initial -- and imperfect -- move in the direction of a sustainable future. China's chief negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, issued this message, saying that while the accord was not ideal, it should "not prevent us from marching historical steps forward."

United States President Barack Obama lauded the deal as both "ambitious" and "historic," and the work of strenuous multilateral negotiations as he declared, "Together, we've shown what's possible when the world stands as one." The United States leader acknowledged that the accord was not "perfect," but he reminded the critics that it was "the best chance to save the one planet we have. "

Former United States Vice President Al Gore, one of the world's most well known environmental advocates, issued a lengthy statement on the accompishments ensconced in the Paris Agreement. He highlighted the fact that the Paris Agreement was a first step towards a future with a reduced carbon footprint on Planet Earth as he said, "The components of this agreement -- including a strong review mechanism to enhance existing commitments and a long-term goal to eliminate global-warming pollution this century -- are essential to unlocking the necessary investments in our future. No agreement is perfect, and this one must be strengthened over time, but groups across every sector of society will now begin to reduce dangerous carbon pollution through the framework of this agreement."

The central provisions of the Paris Agreement included the following items:

- Greenhouse gas emissions should peak as quickly as possible, with a move towards balancing energy sources, and ultimately the decrease of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century - Global temperature increase would be limited to 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels and would be held "well below" the two degrees Centigrade threshold - Progress on these goals would be reviewed every five years beginning in 2020 with new greenhouse gas reduction targets issued every five years - $100 billion would be expended each year in climate finance for developing countries to move forward with green technologies, with further climate financing to be advanced in the years beyond

It should be noted that there both legally binding and voluntary elements contained within the Paris Agreement. Specifically, the submission of an emissions reduction target and the regular review of that goal would be legally mandatory for all countries. Stated differently, there would be

India Review 2016 Page 383 of 408 pages India a system in place by which experts would be able to track the carbon-cutting progress of each country. At the same time, the specific targets to be set by countries would be determined at the discretion of the countries, and would not be binding. While there was some criticism over this non-binding element, the fact of the matter was that the imposition of emissions targets was believed to be a major factor in the failure of climate change talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009.

In 2015, the talks faced challenges as several countries, such as China and India, objected to conditions that would stymie economic and development. In order to avoid that kind of landmine, a system Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) was developed and formed the basis of the accord. As such, the Paris Agreement would, in fact, facilitate economic growth and development, as well as technological progress, but with the goal of long-term ecological sustainability based on low carbon sources. In fact, the agreement heralded as "the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era." As noted by Nick Mabey, the head of the climate diplomacy organization E3G, said, "Paris means governments will go further and faster to tackle climate change than ever before. The transition to a low carbon economy is now unstoppable, ensuring the end of the fossil fuel age."

A particular sticking point in the agreement was the $100 billion earmarked for climate financing for developing countries to transition from traditional fossil fuels to green energy technologies and a low carbon future. In 2014, a report by the International Energy Agency indicated that the cost of that transition would actually be around $44 trillion by the mid-century -- an amount that would render the $100 billion being promised to be a drop in the proverbial bucket. However, the general expectation was that the Republican-controlled Senate in the United States, which would have to ratify the deal in that country, was not interested in contributing significant funds for the cause of climate change.

A key strength of the Paris Agreement was the ubiquitous application of measures to all countries. Of note was the frequently utilized concept of "flexibility" with regard to the Paris Agreement. Specifically, the varying capacities of the various countries in meeting their obligations would be anticipated and accorded flexibility. This aspect presented something of a departure from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which drew a sharp distinction between developed and developing countries, and mandated a different set of obligations for those categories of countries. Thus, under Kyoto, China and India were not held to the same standards as the United States and European countries. In the Paris Agreement, there would be commitments from all countries across the globe.

Another notable strength of the Paris Agreement was the fact that the countries of the world were finally able to reach consensus on the vital necessity to limit global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Centrigrade. Ahead of the global consensus on the deal, and as controversy continued to surface over the targeted global temperature limits, the leaders of island countries were sounding

India Review 2016 Page 384 of 408 pages India the alarm about the melting of the Polar ice caps and the associated rise in seal level. Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga of Tuvalu issued this dismal reminder: “Tuvalu’s future … is already bleak and any further temperature increase will spell the total demise of Tuvalu. No leader in this room carries such a level of worry and responsibility. Just imagine you are in my shoes, what would you do?” It was thus something of a victory for environmental advocates that the countries of the world could find cnsensus on the lower number -- 1.5 degrees rather than 2 degrees.

A significant weak point with regard to the Paris deal was a "loss and damage" provision, which anticipates that even with all the new undertakings intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move to a low carbon future, there would nonetheless be unavoidable climate change consequences. Those consequences ranged from the loss of arable land for farmers as well as soil erosion and contamination of potable water by sea water, to the decimation of territory in coastal zones and on small islands, due to the rise in sea level, with entire small island countries being rendered entirely uninhabitable. The reality was that peoples' homes across the world would be destroyed along with their way of life.

With that latter catastrophic effect being a clear and present danger for small island countries, the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) demanded that the developed world acknowledge its responsibility for this irreversible damage.. Despite the fact that greenhouse gas emissions and the ensuing plague of global warming was, indeed, the consequence of development in the West (the United States and Europe) and the large power house countries, such as Russia, China and India, there was no appetite by those countries to sign on to unlimited liability. Under the Paris Agreement, there was a call for research on insurance mechanisms that would address loss and damage issues, with recommendations to come in the future.

The call for research was being regarded as an evasion of sorts and constituted the weakest aspect of the Paris Agreement. Not surprisingly, a coalition of small island nations demanded a "Marshall Plan" for the Pacific. Borrowing the term "Marshall Plan" from the post-World War II reconstruction effort, the coalition of Pacific island nation, which included Kiribati, Tuvalu, Fiji, and the Marshall Islands, called for an initiative that would include investment in renewable energy and shoreline protection, cultural preservation, economic assistance for economies in transition, and a plan for migration and resettlement for these countries as they confront the catastrophic effects of the melting of the Polar ice caps and the concomitant rise in sea level. The precise contours of the initiative remained unknown, unspecified, and a mere exercise in theory at the time of writing. Yet such an initiative would, at some point, have to be addressed, given the realities of climate change and the slow motion calamity unfolding each day for low-lying island nations across the world.

As noted by Vice President Greg Stone of Conservation International, who also functions as an adviser to the government of Kiribati, “Imagine living in a place where you know it’s going to go away someday, but you don’t know what day that wave’s going to come over and wash your

India Review 2016 Page 385 of 408 pages India home away." He added, “It’s a disaster we know is going to happen.” Meanwhile, the intervening years promised to be filled with hardship for small island nations, such as Kiribati. Stone explained, “For every inch of sea-level rise, these islands lose 10 feet of their freshwater table to saltwater intrusion,” Stone explained. “So it’s not just about the day the water finally goes over the island; it’s also about the day that there’s just not enough water left and everyone has to move off the island.” Presaging the future for island nations that could face submersion, Stone said, “If you look ahead 50 years, a country like Kiribati could become the first aqueous nation. possibility of migration. That is, they own this big patch of ocean, and they administer it from elsewhere.”

Foreign Minister Minister Tony Debrum of the Marshall Islands emerged as the champion advocating on behalf of small island nation states and a loose coalition of concerned countries from the Pacific to the Caribbean, but with support from the United States. He addressed the comprehensive concerns of small island nations regarding the weaknesses of the deal, while simultaneously making clear that the Paris Agreement signified hope for the countries most at risk. In a formal statement, Debrum declared: "We have made history today. Emissions targets are still way off track, but this agreement has the tools to ramp up ambition, and brings a spirit of hope that we can rise to this challenge. I can go back home to my people and say we now have a pathway to survival.” Debrum highlighted the imperatives of Pacific island nations, saying, “Our High Ambition Coalition was the lightning rod we needed to lift our sights and expectations for a strong agreement here in Paris. We were joined by countries representing more than half the world. We said loud and clear that a bare-bones, minimalist agreement would not fly. We instead demanded an agreement to mark a turning point in history, and the beginning of our journey to the post-carbon era.”

Debrum of the Marshall Islands espoused the quintessential synopsis of the accord and its effects for those most likely to be affected by climate change as he noted, “Climate change won’t stop overnight, and my country is not out of the firing line just yet, but today we all feel a little safer.”

Editor's Entry on Environmental Policy:

The low-lying Pacific island nations of the world, including Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands, Fiji, among others, are vulnerable to the threats posed by global warming and cimate change, derived from carbon emissions, and resulting in the rise in sea level. Other island nations in the Caribbean, as well as poor countries with coastal zones, were also at particular risk of suffering the deleterious effects of climate change.

Political policy in these countries are often connected to ecological issues, which have over time morphed into an existential crisis of sorts. Indeed, ecological concerns and the climate crisis have also been dominant themes with life and death consequences for the people of island nations in the Pacific. Indeed, the very livelihoods of fishing and subsistence farming remain at risk as a result of

India Review 2016 Page 386 of 408 pages India ecological and environmental changes. Yet even so, these countries are threatened by increasingly high storm surges, which could wipe out entire villages and contaminate water supplies. Moreover, because these are low lying island nations, the sustained rise in sea level can potentially lead to the terrain of these countries being unihabitable at best, and submerged at worst. Stated in plain terms, these countries are at severe risk of being obliterated from the map and their plight illuminates the emerging global challenge of environmental refugees. In these manifold senses, climate change is the existential crisis of the contemporary era.

Since the time of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, there have been efforts aimed at extending the life of that agreement, with an eye on minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, and thus minimizing the effects of climate change. Those endeavors have largely ended in failure, as exemplified by the unsuccessful Copenhagen talks in 2009 and the fruitless Doha talks in 2012 respectively. The success of the COP 21 talks in France, with the adoption of the landmark Paris Agreement in 2015, was regarded as the first glimmer of hope. Not only did the Paris Agreement signify the triumph of international diplomacy and global consensus, but it also marked the start of the end of the fossil fuel era, with the path forward toward a low carbon future reliant on greener technologies. Most crucially, the Paris Agreement stood as the first significant response in recent times to the central challenge of climate change and its quotidian effects on the lives of real human beings across the world.

1. Major International Environmental Accords:

General Environmental Concerns

Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Espoo, 1991.

Accords Regarding Atmosphere

Annex 16, vol. II (Environmental Protection: Aircraft Engine Emissions) to the 1044 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, Montreal, 1981

Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), Geneva, 1079

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), New York, 1002

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Vienna, 1985 including the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Depleted the Ozone Layer, Montreal, 1987

India Review 2016 Page 387 of 408 pages India

Accords Regarding Hazardous Substances

Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movements and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa, Bamako, 1991

Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Caused during Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road, Rail and Inland Navigation Vessels (CRTD), Geneva, 1989

Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention), Basel, 1989

Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, Helsinki, 1992

Convention to Ban the Importation into Forum Island Countries of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes and to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within the South Pacific Region (Waigani Convention), Waigani, 1995

European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR), Geneva 1957

FAO International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, Rome, 1985

2. Major International Marine Accords:

Global Conventions

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention 1972), London, 1972

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by Protocol of 1978 relation thereto (MARPOL 73/78), London, 1973 and 1978

International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (1969 CLC), Brussels, 1969, 1976, and 1984

International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1971 (1971 Fund Convention), Brussels, 1971

Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of

India Review 2016 Page 388 of 408 pages India

Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS), London 1996

International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response, and Co-operation (OPRC), London, 1990

International Convention Relation to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties (Intervention Convention), Brussels, 1969

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Montego Bay, 1982

Regional Conventions

Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft (Oslo Convention), Oslo, 1972

Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources (Paris Convention), Paris, 1974

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention), Paris, 1992

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (1974 Helsinki Convention), Helsinki 1974

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (1992 Helsinki Convention), Helsinki 1992

Conventions within the UNEP Regional Seas Programme

Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution, Bucharest, 1992

Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, Cartagena de Indias, 1983

Convention for the Protection, Management, and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African Region, Nairobi, 1985

Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on the Protection of the Marine Environment from Pollution, Kuwait, 1978

India Review 2016 Page 389 of 408 pages India

Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment and Coastal Region of the Mediterranean Sea (Barcelona Convention), Barcelona, 1976

Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment, Jeddah, 1982

Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region, Noumea, 1986

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Area of the South-East Pacific, Lima, 1981

Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region, Abidjan, 1981

3. Major Conventions Regarding Living Resources:

Marine Living Resources

Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), Canberra, 1980

International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), Rio de Janeiro, 1966

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), Washington, 1946

Nature Conservation and Terrestrial Living Resources

Antarctic Treaty, Washington, D.C., 1959

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention), Paris, 1972

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Nairobi, 1992

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Bonn, 1979

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Washington, D.C., 1973

India Review 2016 Page 390 of 408 pages India

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention), Ramsar, 1971

Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD), Paris 1994

FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, 1983

International Tropical Timber Agreement, 1994 (ITTA, 1994), Geneva, 1994

Freshwater Resources

Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, Helsinki, 1992

4. Major Conventions Regarding Nuclear Safety:

Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency (Assistance Convention), Vienna, 1986

Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (Notification Convention), Vienna, 1986

Convention on Nuclear Safety, Vienna, 1994

Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, Vienna, 1963

5. Major Intergovernmental Organizations

Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)

European Union (EU): Environment

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Global Environment Facility (GEF)

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

India Review 2016 Page 391 of 408 pages India

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

International Labour Organization (ILO)

International Maritime Organization (IMO)

International Monetary Fund (IMF)

International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPC Funds)

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Environment Policy Committee (EPOC)

United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

World Bank

World Food Programme (WFP)

World Health Organization (WHO)

World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

World Trade Organization (WTO)

6. Major Non-Governmental Organizations

Atmosphere Action Network East Asia (AANEA)

India Review 2016 Page 392 of 408 pages India

Climate Action Network (CAN)

Consumers International (CI)

Earth Council

Earthwatch Institute

Environmental Liaison Centre International (ELCI)

European Environmental Bureau (EEB)

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI)

Greenpeace International

International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)

International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)

International Solar Energy Society (ISES)

IUCN-The World Conservation Union

Pesticide Action Network (PAN)

Sierra Club

Society for International Development (SID)

Third World Network (TWN)

Water Environment Federation (WEF)

Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO)

India Review 2016 Page 393 of 408 pages India

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

World Federalist Movement (WFM)

World Resources Institute (WRI)

World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF)

7. Other Networking Instruments

Arab Network for Environment and Development (RAED)

Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE)

Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC)

United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS)

India Review 2016 Page 394 of 408 pages India

Appendices

India Review 2016 Page 395 of 408 pages India

Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sources: Key Data

Altapedia. URL: http://www.atlapedia.com/online/country_index.htm

Ethnologue. URL: http://www.ethnologue.com

Geobase Global Statistics. URL: http://www.geoba.se

Infoplease: URL: http://www.infoplease.com

The Statesman's Year Book 2006. Barry Turner, ed. London: St. Martin's Press.

United States Department of State, Background Notes. URL: http://www.state.gov/www/background_notes/index.htm

United States Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook. Washington, D.C.: Printing and Photography Group. URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

World Bank. URL: http://www.worldbank.org/

World Climate Data Online. URL: http://www.worldclimate.com

Methodology Note for Demographic Data:

The demographic numbers for cities and national populations listed in CountryWatch content are derived from the Geoba.se website, which analyzes data from the World Bank. The current demographic numbers displayed on the Countrywatch website are reflective of the latest available estimates.

The demographic information for language, ethnicity and religion listed in CountryWatch content is

India Review 2016 Page 396 of 408 pages India derived from a mix of sources including the Altapedia, Central Intelligence Agency Factbook, Infoplease, and State Department Background Notes.

Sources: Political Overview

Agence France Presse. URL: http://www.afp.com/en/

BBC International News. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ (Various editions and dates as cited in particular reviews)

Britannica Book of the Year. 1998-present. David Calhoun, ed. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica Online URL :http://www.eb.com

Britannica Year in Review. URL: http://www.britannica.com/browse/year

Chiefs of State and Cabinet Members of Foreign Governments. URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/chiefs/index.html

Christian Science Monitor. URL: http://www.csmonitor.com/ (Various editions and dates as cited in particular reviews)

CNN International News. URL:http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/ (Various editions and dates as cited in particular reviews)

Current Leaders of Nations. 1997. Jennifer Mossman, ed. Detroit: Gale Research

The Economist Magazine. (Various editions and dates as cited in particular reviews)

The Economist Country Briefings. URL: http://www.economist.com/countries/

Eldis Country Profiles. URL: http://www.eldis.org/country/index.htm

Elections Around the World. URL: http://www.electionworld.org/

Election Resources. URL: http://electionresources.org/

Europa World Yearbook 1999. Vols. I & II. 1999. London: Europa Publications Ltd.

India Review 2016 Page 397 of 408 pages India

Europe World Online. URL: http://www.europaworld.com/pub/

Financial Times. URL: http://www.financialtimes.com

Foreign Government Resources. URL: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/foreign.html

Human Rights Watch. URL: http://www.hrw.org

IFES Election Guide. URL: http://www.electionguide.org

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. URL: http://www.idea.int/

International Who's Who 1997-1998, 61st Edition. 1997. London: Europa Publications Ltd.

Leadership Views, Chiefs of State Online. URL : http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/chiefs/index.html

Library of Congress Country Studies. URL: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html

New Encyclopedia Britannica. 1998. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.

New York Times. URL: http://www.nytimes.com (Various editions and dates as cited in particular reviews)

Patterns of Global Terrorism. n.d. United States Department of State. Washington D.C.: United States Department of State Publications.

Political Handbook of the World. n.d. Arthur S. Banks, Thomas C. Muller, ed. Binghamton, New York: CSA Publications.

Political Reference Almanac Online. URL: http://www.polisci.com/almanac/nations.htm

Reuters News. URL: http://www.reuters.com/

Rulers. URL: http://rulers.org/

The Guardian Online. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/ (Various editions and dates as cited in particular reviews)

The Statesman's Year-Book 2006. Barry Turner, ed. London: St. Martin's Press.

India Review 2016 Page 398 of 408 pages India

United Nations Development Programme. URL: http://hdr.undp.org

United Nations Refugee Agency. URL: http://www.unhcr.org

United States Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook.Washington, D.C.: Printing and Photography Group. URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

United States Department of State, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers (WMEAT) URL : http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/bureau_ac/reports_ac.html

United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. URL: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18245.htm

United States Department of State, Background Notes. URL: http://www.state.gov/www/background_notes/index.html

Virtual Library: International Relations Resources. URL: http://www.etown.edu/vl/countgen.html

World Bank: Governance Indicators. URL: http://info.worldbank.org/governance

-- See also list of News Wires services below, which are also used for research purposes. --

Note on Edition Dates:

The earlier edition dates are noted above because they were used to formulate the original Country Reviews and serve as the baseline for some of the information covered. Later editions have been used in some cases, and are cited as such, while other more recent online resources (cited above) contain recent and ever-updated data sets used for research.

Sources: Economic Overview

BP Statistical Review of World Energy. URL: http://www.bp.com/genericsection.do? categoryId=92&contentId=7005893

BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 1998. 1998 to present. Page 1.C. London: The British Petroleum Company.

International Monetary Fund, Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.

India Review 2016 Page 399 of 408 pages India

International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics. 1998 to present. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.

International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics Yearbook. 1999 to present. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.

International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook, May 1999. 1999 to present. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.

International Labour Office, World Employment Report, 1998-99. 1998 to present. Geneva: International Labour Office.

United Nations Statistical Division Online. URL: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/default.htm

United Nations Statistics Division, Monthly Bulletin of Statistics (MBS On Line), November 1999 Edition. 1999 to present. New York: United Nations.

United Nations, Statistical Yearbook, 43rd Issue. 1999. 1999 to present New York: United Nations.

United Nations, Food & Agricultural Organization, FAOSTAT Database. URL : http://apps.fao.org/ United Nations, Comtrade Data Base, http://comtrade.un.org/

United States Department of Energy, Country Analysis Briefs. URL:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Database

United States Geological Service, Mineral Information

United States Department of State, Country Commercial Guides. Washington, D.C. United States of America. URL:http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/business/com_guides/index.html

The World Bank, Global Development Finance, Country Tables. 1999 to present. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

The World Bank Group, World Development Indicators. 1999 to present. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Yearbook of Tourism Statistics, World Tourism Organization. 1998 to present. Madrid: The World Tourism Organization.

India Review 2016 Page 400 of 408 pages India

Note on Edition Dates:

The earlier edition dates are noted above because they were used to formulate the original country reviews and serve as the baseline for some of the information covered. Later editions have been used in some cases, and are cited as such, while other more recent online resources (cited above) contain recent and ever-updated data sets used for research.

Methodology Notes for Economic Data:

Estimates by CountryWatch.com of GDP in dollars in most countries are made by converting local currency GDP data from the International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook to US dollars by market exchange rates estimated from the International Monetary Fund International Financial Statistics and projected out by the CountryWatch Macroeconomic Forecast. Real GDP was estimated by deflating current dollar values by the US GDP Implicit Price Deflator.

Exceptions to this method were used for: • Bosnia-Herzegovina • Nauru • Cuba • Palau • Holy See • San Marino • Korea, North • Serbia & Montenegro • Liberia • Somalia • Liechtenstein • Tonga • Monaco • Tuvalu

In these cases, other data and/or estimates by CountryWatch.com were utilized.

Investment Overview

Corruption and Transparency Index. URL: http://www.transparency.org/documents/cpi/2001/cpi2001.html#cpi

Deloitte Tax Guides. URL: http://www.deloittetaxguides.com

India Review 2016 Page 401 of 408 pages India

Trade Policy Reviews by the World Trade Organization . URL: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp_rep_e.htm#bycountry

United States Department of Energy, Country Analysis Briefs. URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html

United States Department of State, Background Notes. URL: http://www.state.gov/www/background_notes/index.html

United States Department of State, Country Commercial Guides. 1996-2006. Washington, D.C. United States of America. URL: http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/business/com_guides/index.html

World Bank: Doing Business. URL: http://www.doingbusiness.org

World Bank: Governance Indicators. URL: http://info.worldbank.org/governance

Social Overview

Borden, G.A., Conaway, W.A., Morrison, T. 1994. Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands: How to do Business in Sixty Countries. Holbrook, Massachusetts, 1994.

Center for Disease Control. URL: http://www.cdc.gov

Eldis Country Profiles. URL: http://www.eldis.org/country/index.htm

Ethnologue. URL: http://www.ethnologue.com/

Government of Australia Department of Foreign Affiars and Trade. URL: http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo

Government of Canada Foreign Affairs and International Trade. URL: http://www.voyage.gc.ca/consular_home-e.htm

Library of Congress Country Studies. URL: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html

Lonely Planet. URL: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/

Steve Kropla's Online Help For World Travelers. URL: http://www.kropla.com/

India Review 2016 Page 402 of 408 pages India

United Kingdom Ministry of Foreign and Commonwealth Office. URL: http://www.fco.gov.uk/

United Nations Human Development Report. URL: http://www.undp.org/hdro

UNICEF Statistical Database Online. URL: http://www.unicef.org/statis/atoz.html

United States Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook. 2001. Washington, D.C.: Printing and Photography Group. URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

United States Department of State, Background Notes. URL: http://www.state.gov/www/background_notes/index.html

United States Department of State, Commercial and Business Affairs: Travel Tips. URL: http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/business/cba_travel.html

United States Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs. URL: http://travel.state.gov/

World Health Organization. URL: http://www.who.int/home-page/

World News Connection, National Technical Information Service. Springfield, Virginia, USA.

Internet News Service, Xinhua News Agency (U.S.) Inc. Woodside, New York. URL: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/

Note on Edition Dates:

The earlier edition dates are noted above because they were used to formulate the original country reviews and serve as the baseline for some of the information covered. Later editions have been used in some cases, and are cited as such, while other more recent online resources (cited above) contain recent and ever-updated data sets used for research.

Methodology Notes for the HDI:

Since 1990, the United Nations Development Programme, in concert with organizations across the globe, has produced the Human Development Index (or HDI). According to the UNDP, the index measures average achievement in basic human development in one simple composite index, and produces from this index a ranking of countries. The HDI is a composite of three basic components of human development: longevity, knowledge and standard of living. Longevity is measured by life expectancy. Knowledge is measured by combination of adult literacy and mean

India Review 2016 Page 403 of 408 pages India years of schooling. Standard of living is measured by purchasing power, based on real GDP per capita (in constant US$) adjusted for differences in international living costs (or, purchasing power parity, PPP). While the index uses these social indicators to measure national performance with regard to human welfare and development, not all countries provide the same level of information for each component needed to compute the index; therefore, as in any composite indicator, the final index is predicated on projections, predictions and weighting schemes. The index is a static measure, and thus, an incomplete measure of human welfare. In fact, the UNDP says itself the concept of human development focuses on the ends rather than the means of development and progress, examining in this manner, the average condition of all people in a given country.

Specifically, the index is calculated by determining the maximum and minimum for each of the three components (as listed above) and then measuring where each country stands in relation to these scales-expressed as a value between 0 and 1. For example, the minimum adult literary rate is zero percent, the maximum is 100 percent, and the reading skills component of knowledge in the HDI for a country where the literacy rate is 75 percent would be 0.75. The scores of all indicators are then averaged into the overall index.

For a more extensive examination of human development, as well as the ranking tables for each participating country, please visit: http://www.undp.org

Note on History sections

In some CountryWatch Country Reviews, open source content from the State Department Background Notes and Country Guides have been used.

Environmental Overview

Environmental Profiles: A Global Guide to Projects and People. 1993. Linda Sobel Katz, Sarah Orrick, and Robert Honig. New York: Garland Publishing.

The Environment Encyclopedia and Directory, 2nd Edition. 1998. London: Europa.

Environmental Protection Agency Global Warming Site. URL: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming

Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations: Forestry. URL: http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/sofo/en/

Global Warming Information Page. URL: http://globalwarming.org

Introduction to Global Environmental Issues, 2nd Edition. 1997. Kevin Pickering and Lewis Owen.

India Review 2016 Page 404 of 408 pages India

London: Routledge.

Trends: Compendium of Data on Global Change. URL: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm

United Nations Environmental Program. URL: http://www.unep.org/GEO/GEO_Products/Assessment_Reports/

United Nations Global Environmental Outlook. URL: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/

United States Department of Energy, Country Analysis Briefs. URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html

World Climate Data Online. URL: http://www.worldclimate.com

World Directory of Country Environmental Studies. 1996. The World Resource Institute.

World Factbook. US Central Intelligence Agency. Washington, D.C.: Printing and Photography Group.

1998-1999 World Resources Guide to the Global Environment by the World Resources Institute. May, 1998.

1998/1999 Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development. 1998. London: Earthscan Publications.

Note on Edition Dates:

The earlier edition dates are noted above because they were used to formulate the original country reviews and serve as the baseline for some of the information covered. Later editions have been used in some cases, and are cited as such, while other more recent online resources (cited above) contain recent and ever-updated data sets used for research.

Other Sources:

General information has also been used in the compilation of this review, with the courtesy of governmental agencies from this country.

News Services:

India Review 2016 Page 405 of 408 pages India

CANA Daily Bulletin. Caribbean Media Agency Ltd., St. Michael, Barbados.

Central and Eastern Africa Report, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - Integrated Regional Information Network for Central and Eastern Africa.

Daily News, Panafrican News Agency. Dakar, Senegal.

PACNEWS, Pacific Islands Broadcasting Association. Suva, Fiji.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Washington D.C. USA.

Reuters News. Thomson Reuters. New York, New York. USA.

Southern Africa Report, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - Integrated Regional Information Network for Southern Africa.

Voice of America, English Service. Washington D.C.

West Africa Report, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - Integrated Regional Information Network for West Africa. 1998-1999

Note: Some or all these news services have been used to research various sections of this Country Review.

USING COUNTRYWATCH.COM AS AN ELECTRONIC SOURCE:

MLA STYLE OF CITATION

Commentary

For items in a "Works Cited" list, CountryWatch.com suggests that users follow recommended patterns forindentation given in the MLA Handbook, 4th edition.

Individual Works

Basic form, using an Internet protocol:

India Review 2016 Page 406 of 408 pages India

Author/editor. Title of Print Version of Work. Edition statement (if given). Publication information (Place of publication: publisher, date), if given. Title of Electronic Work. Medium. Available Protocol (if applicable):Site/Path/File. Access date.

Examples:

Youngblood-Coleman, Denise. Country Review: France. 2003. Houston, Texas: CountryWatch Publications, 2003. Country Review:France. Online. Available URL: http://www.countrywatch.com/cw_country.asp?vCOUNTRY=61 October, 12, 2003. Note: This is the citation format used when the print version is not used in the reference.

Parts of Works

Basic form, using an Internet protocol:

Author/editor. "Part title." Title of Print Version of Work. Edition statement (if given). Publication information (Place of publication: publisher, date), if given. Title of Electronic Work. Medium. AvailableProtocol (if applicable): Site/Path/File. Access date.

Examples:

Youngblood-Coleman, Denise. "People." CountryWatch.com: France. 2003. Houston, Texas: CountryWatch Publications, 2003. CountryWatch.com: France. Online. Available URL : http://www.countrywatch.com/cw_topic.asp? vCOUNTRY=61&SECTION=SOCIAL&TOPIC=CLPEO&TYPE=TEXT. October 12, 2003.

Note: This is the citation format used when the print version is not used in the reference.

For further source citation information, please email: [email protected] or [email protected].

India Review 2016 Page 407 of 408 pages CountryWatch

CountryWatch is an information provider for public and private sector organizations that operate globally. The management of CountryWatch has extensive international experience and has utilized this experience to provide a concise and useful set of political, economic, and business information for its clients in the form of Country Reviews, the Country Wire, CountryWatch Data, Elections Central, CountryWatch Videos and CountryWatch Forecast.

This Country Review is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information on the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publication is not intended to provide legal, accounting, investment, or other professional advice.

CountryWatch believes that the information and opinions contained here in are reliable, but does not make any warranties, express or implied, and assumes no liability for reliance on or use of the information or opinions contained herein.

The offices of CountryWatch are located at:

CountryWatch, Inc. 5005 Riverway Suite 220 Houston, Texas 77056 U.S.A. Tel: 800-879-3885 Fax: 713-355-3770 Web address: http://www.countrywatch.com Email: [email protected]

ISBN: 1- 60523- 693-4 India Country Review 2016

ISSN: 1- 60523- 893-5

Printed in the United States of America