0.2318
7667766266
x

Foreign Assistance for Disaster Relief - UAE to Kerala

iasparliament Logo
August 24, 2018

What is the issue?

  • India has turned down the UAE’s reported offer of Rs 700 crore as aid for flood relief in Kerala.
  • It has cited the 2004 policy of not accepting aid from foreign governments as the reason, which needs a relook.

What is the rationale for the 2004 policy?

  • Self-Reliance - It was felt then that India could cope with the situation on her own and take help if needed.
  • The idea was that India had become a large economy.
  • Hence, accepting small aid moneys from countries was not in keeping with the times.
  • The policy was also a symbolic signal to end India’s dependence on concessional debt.
  • Economy - Since 1956, India had severe foreign exchange constraints.
  • But 2003-04 was a different year, with strong macroeconomic fundamentals.
  • India had already graduated to become a “less indebted country” in the IMF ranking.
  • It had also registered a surplus in its current account in 2001-02.
  • Its foreign exchange reserves had also topped $75 billion by 2003.
  • Superpower - One of the contexts for the 2004 policy was the India’s superpower dream.
  • It was felt that India should demonstrate its strength to withstand and counter calamities.
  • It should exhibit to the world that it could also help its neighbours.
  • It was thought to strengthen India's case for a permanent seat in UN Security Council.
  • These were believed to hasten the prospect of superpower status by 2020.
  • Diplomacy - It was felt that assistance would leave scope for interference in internal affairs.
  • Also, accepting from any one country offers the scope for others as well.
  • But it would be diplomatically difficult to refuse from some and accept from others.
  • Concern - There were doubts if the policy would be perceived as a rude gesture in diplomatic circles.
  • Also, External Affairs Ministry was displeased with it as its explicit concurrence was not sought.
  • The MEA thus had to deal with countries bilaterally, and manage the effect of an abrupt change in aid receiving policy.
  • Over the years, the policy has also not made any noteworthy contributions for India to fulfil its ambitions.

What is the 2016 NDMP in this regard?

  • The 2016 National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP) provides for accepting foreign assistance in the wake of a disaster.
  • Under this, the Government does not issue any appeal for foreign assistance.
  • However, if the national government of another country voluntarily offers, it may accept.
  • The Home Ministry is required to coordinate with the External Affairs Ministry (MEA) in this regard.
  • As, MEA is primarily responsible for reviewing foreign offers of assistance and channelizing them.
  • The 2016 NDMP guidelines also provides for multilateral assistance.
  • Under this, India will accept an offer of assistance from UN agencies.
  • But this is only if the government considers it necessary, based on various factors.
  • If accepted, the Government of India will issue directions.
  • The respective Ministry/State Government will then have to coordinate with the concerned UN agency.
  • Any such financial assistance by UN financial institutions involving foreign exchange will require the Department of Economic Affairs' approval.

What is the current controversy?

  • The 2016 guidelines have been mostly on paper.
  • So the government has been following the policy on disaster aid decided in 2004.
  • There is thus a clear mismatch between convention and written document.
  • The recent aid for Kerala was also not accepted citing this "existing policy".

Is the decision justified?

  • Offers of aid from foreign governments must naturally be scrutinised for national security interests.
  • Also, state governments forming their own bilateral aid and assistance would be like allowing them to conduct an independent foreign policy.
  • But India should not be mixing up its 20th century security fears with 21st century realities of technological advancements.
  • Irrespective of policies, democracies should be flexible enough to respond to emergencies.
  • The intention and objective should only be the greater good of the victims.
  • Sticking merely to the precedent or pride may not serve the citizens' cause.
  • The decision may also have a negative impact on India’s relations with the UAE.

What is the way forward?

  • Notions of self-reliance have to be reassessed in the larger context of a multilateral world.
  • In the case of bilateral assistance, India needs to examine offers case by case.
  • E.g. UAE's assistance comes as an obligation to help Kerala in distress, in accordance with the Islamic faith.
  • As, Keralites have served their country well over the years.
  • Similar is the case of Qatar, which has offered Rs. 35 crore.
  • The need now for the central government is to use all assistance, Indian and foreign, to rebuild Kerala.
  • It should also put an end to the 2004 precedent and bring into implementation the latest guidelines.
  • India should also hold discussions with the UN and the Red Cross with a view to formulating plans for reconstruction.
  • Using the latest technology and adopting such assistance would only benefit India.

 

Source: Indian Express, The Hindu

Login or Register to Post Comments
There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to review.

ARCHIVES

MONTH/YEARWISE ARCHIVES

sidetext
Free UPSC Interview Guidance Programme
sidetext