Should India’s policy of no foreign aid for relief and rehabilitation during disasters be done away with? Comment. (200 words)
Refer – The Hindu
Enrich the answer from other sources, if the question demands.
IAS Parliament 6 years
KEY POINTS
Arguments in favour
· Super power dream – One of the contexts for the 2004 policy was the India’s superpower dream.
· Neither taking aid from countries for disaster relief is a sign of weakness nor would turning away foreign assistance show India as more powerful.
· NDMP guidelines – Under the National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP) 2016, India may accept foreign assistance, if the national government of another country voluntarily offers.
· But, the government has been following the policy on disaster aid decided in 2004.
· There is thus a clear mismatch between convention and written document.
· Fearing foreign hand – It was felt that assistance would leave scope for spies who would come with the package, interfere in the country’s internal affairs.
· The development of technology is such that foreigners do not need to come in to India to know what is happening or to influence decision-making here.
· India should not be mixing up its 20th century security fears with 21st century realities of technological advancements.
Arguments against
· All aid is routed through the Centre for reasons that have stood the test of time.
· Consider, for example, the manner in which development assistance is being used by the People’s Republic of China to warp the local politics of many countries along its periphery.
· Clearly, it would be a significant security threat, if china being given a free hand to contribute to North Eastern states and Pakistan be allowed to help out government of J&K.
· Foreign policy is in the Union’s remit according to the Constitution, and allowing state governments to form their own bilateral aid and assistance ties is tantamount to allowing them to conduct an independent foreign policy.
· This cannot be considered appropriate, however dire the emergency.
