On April 23, eight days after 25-30 soldiers of  China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) walked across an unguarded portion of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) between India and China in Ladakh, military delegations from both sides met again to try and resolve the standoff. But a four hour long meeting failed to break the deadlock, prolonging the latest flashpoint between the two nuclear armed powers.

China and India fought a brief but bitter war in 1962 over the non-demarcated border, but even half a century after that conflict ended the boundary dispute remains unresolved, leading to episodes like the current face off. 

Both sides have put in place several mechanisms to ensure that small incidents on the border do not get out of hand despite continued incursions and intrusions by both sides. In a break from the pattern, however, the Chinese troops have setup tents and stayed in position six miles inside Indian Territory for more than a week, posing a dilemma for Indian decision makers.

While neither Beijing nor New Delhi wants the current situation to escalate beyond the local level, domestic factors in both countries makes it difficult for the two governments to devise a solution that doesn't look like one side has conceded too much to the other.

So even as China demands that India stop developing militarily useful infrastructure on the border, it continues to stress it seeks a comprehensive strategic partnership with New Delhi. China’s “two track” approach could be seen in some quarters as a strategy to keep India engaged strategically while keeping it off balance tactically.

Since taking office President Xi Jinping has largely hewed to his predecessors’ five point formula for moving the India-China relationship forward. On the border issue, for instance, Xi has simply reiterated previous Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's assertion that the resolution of the boundary problem is not easy and therefore the two sides must concentrate on other factors like the burgeoning bilateral trade believed to total US$100 billion. India, aware that its economic and military strength is still not on par with China, has often chosen to downplay or ignore Chinese provocations and instead peddle the line that there is enough room in Asia for both to rise simultaneously.

The latest flare up threatens to test both sides’ patience and resolve. Earlier this week, Syed Akbaruddin, spokesman for India's External Affairs Ministry, asked China to withdraw its troops and return to the status quo. His counterpart in Beijing, Hua Chunying, resorted to the usual rhetoric, stating "The two sides should work together to properly solve this issue left over from history through peaceful negotiations, so as to create good conditions for sound development of bilateral relations.”

The two conciliatory statements raised hopes that a resolution at the border would be forthcoming, but these were squashed when the Chinese military put forward two preconditions at the flag meeting with India’s military. As the meeting made clear, the Chinese military want India to agree to stop building outposts and logistics depots and conducting patrols near the perceived border, before its troops would retreat behind the border again. India is unlikely to accept these terms.

Eventually, both sides may craft a face saving compromise by agreeing to some of the points, but veteran China watchers in India say Beijing will use the latest episode to push for yet another bilateral mechanism for border management.

Jayadeva Ranade, a China specialist formerly with India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) says: "The present stand-off does not reflect any new policy, but is part of the standard Chinese patrolling policy along the borders including DBO. The Chinese will use this opportunity to revive a proposal put forward during Chinese Defence Minister Liang Guanglie's visit that to avoid such confrontations the troops at the borders should advise each other of their patrolling programmes/schedules."

Whatever the formula, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will have a lot to talk about when his new Chinese counterpart Premier Li Keqiang makes his first visit to India, expected to take place sometime in late May.

Nitin Gokhale is Defence & Strategic Affairs Editor with Indian broadcaster, NDTV 24×7.

An eight-story building housing garment factories collapsed on April 24 in the Bangladeshi capital Dhaka killing at least 260 people and injuring over 1,000 others. Reports indicate that over 2,000 people were in the Rana Plaza building on the outskirts of Dhaka when it collapsed. According to local news media, inspection teams had discovered cracks in the building earlier in the week, prompting several shops in the lower floors to close. However, garment factory owners reportedly ordered employees to work on April 24 despite the potential safety risks.

The collapse also comes merely months after a fire in November 2012 in Tazreen Fashions, another garment factory near Dhaka which left 117 workers dead and revived concerns about the local factory owners, officials and foreign brands’ commitment to safety standards. The garment factories in the Rana Plaza building were producing products for major European and North American brands such as Spanish brand Mango, low-cost British chain Primark and Canadian fashion brand Joe Fresh.

Following the incident, Primark issued a statement saying the company was "shocked and saddened" over the tragedy and confirmed that one of its suppliers "occupied the second floor" of the building. However, beyond expressions of regret, global brands have done little to ensure better safety standards.

Companies such as Walmart, which encountered criticism after the Tazreen Fashions fire last year, had contended that the factory was producing clothes without its authorization, shifting blame onto suppliers. Part of the problem stems from the practice of authorized suppliers subcontracting work to factories without the knowledge of global brands.  A number of such factories are housed in illegal buildings, which are fire-prone due to poor wiring and usually lack sufficient number of exits.

Labor rights groups such as Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC), which seeks to improve the working conditions of laborers in the global garments industry, argues that such incidents will continue until brands and government officials agree to an independent and binding fire and building safety program. 

The CCC has called on brands sourcing garments from Bangladesh to sign the Bangladesh Fire and Building Safety Agreement, which provides for independent building inspections, worker rights training, public disclosure and review of safety standards. Furthermore, according to the Financial Times, the International Labor Organization seeks to replicate a program that has been successful in improving factory conditions in Vietnam, but Dhaka’s reluctance to acknowledge trade union rights has been a stumbling block. As it is, the country’s 3.6 million garment workers are among the lowest paid in the world and without a comprehensive safety review, Bangladesh's booming garment industry could see its global reputation founder.

According to a November 2011 McKinsey report, garment exports were valued at US$15 billion in 2010, accounting for 75 percent of Bangladesh’s overall exports and 13 percent of the country’s GDP. 

A potential cut back in garments imports from Bangladesh by global brands under pressure from human and labor rights groups could devastate the country’s economy. To avert this, Bangladesh would do well to review the safety standards for its garments industry and introduce a more rigorous monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance.

In Afghan society today there is a palpable sense of frustration about the state of the country and Pakistan’s role. In particular, Afghans resent their neighbor’s build up at the Durand Line, the border that Afghanistan has never accepted. Kabul claims Pakistan’s construction of checkpoints at the edge of the Goshta District of eastern Nangarhar Province are an incursion into its territory.

However, Afghans are more upset over what they claim to be Islamabad’s obstructive role in the peace process. The prevailing view in Afghanistan is that Pakistan is playing a destabilizing role in the country. According to this view, the peace process with the Taliban has failed to make headway as a result.

During a recent debate in Afghanistan’s senate, Deputy Foreign Minister Jawed Ludin came down heavily on Islamabad, saying that Pakistan represents the greatest threat to security in Afghanistan, and has sent conflicting messages during its talks with the government of Afghanistan.

Cynicism prevails in Kabul over the Brussels talk that the U.S. has organized in the hope of reconciling differences between Afghanistan and Pakistan. On Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry hosted a meeting that brought Afghan President Hamid Karzai together with Pakistan army chief general Ashfaq Kayani and senior Foreign Ministry official Jalil Jilani, with the ultimate aim of bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table.

Afghan foreign ministry spokesman Janan Mosazai was quoted by the Guardian as saying, "Unfortunately Pakistan today is changing the goalposts on its support for the peace process once again. Pakistan somehow decided now to put down certain preconditions for its support for the peace process which are completely unacceptable to Afghanistan and to any other independent country."

According to the article, the establishment in Islamabad wants Kabul to sever ties with India, send its army officers to Pakistan for training and sign a strategic partnership deal.

Some have claimed that the goal is to give Taliban members based in Pakistan a greater say in the peace talks. Abdul Hakim Mujahid, a member of Afghanistan's High Peace Council, denounces the idea.

The Council was set up three years ago to initiate the peace process with insurgent groups. Mujahid, who was the former Taliban government’s ambassador to the UN, told The Diplomat, “There is no doubt that the Taliban movement in Afghanistan has its own agenda with the national interest in mind. Taliban (members) in Pakistan have their own agenda in their own country. So they are totally different. We are working for peace and reconciliation – not with the Taliban movement in Pakistan but with the Taliban movement in Afghanistan.”

He added, however, that he “hopes Pakistan will remain faithful to its promise of supporting the peace process.”

But Afghans are leery of trusting their neighbor.

“Tell me when Pakistan has thought about Afghanistan’s welfare,” Fathullah Naimzai, an educator in Kabul, told The Diplomat. “They have always thrived on destabilizing us and Pakistan’s intention is quite suspect. Had Pakistan not interfered in our country’s affairs we could have been really a peaceful country.”

Reports in Afghan newspapers also reflect the collective sense of helplessness surrounding efforts to engage Pakistan in Brussels. According to a report in Daily Outlook Afghanistan, the current atmosphere and accusations are not conducive to a positive outcome in Brussels.

When the High Peace Council came into existence there was a modicum of hope that the peace process would gain traction and help to stabilize Afghanistan following the withdrawal of foreign troops. In light of recent events, however, this hope looks increasingly forlorn.

From current affairs to social issues and human interest stories, Pakistani journalist Kiran Nazish has written for Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, Forbes  and a host of other local and foreign publications on hard-hitting socio-political issues and poignant stories of those affected by war.

In an interview with The Diplomat, Nazish speaks about the challenges of being a female journalist in Pakistan, and reporting on sensitive issues in a country that has been called “the most dangerous for journalists.”

You recently traveled to Peshawar to report on the deplorable state of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) living in the Jalozai camp. As a journalist, how important is empathy and compassion when interviewing those affected by war and tragedy?

Empathy and compassion are imperative for journalists to nurture. If you are reporting about victims of war, ethnic violence or displacement – such as the IDPs – and you are not compassionate, you are missing the whole point.

The absence of empathy and compassion will also paralyze your reporting and you will never get to hear the complete story and hence never get to tell the complete truth. Often when I interview people who have been affected by war and tragedy, they complain about how journalists come to them and ask brutal, insensitive questions and take photos of them without their permission. They feel used and deceived. That is absolutely unethical and undermining.

Do not doubt me when I say, I have learnt the greatest lessons of courage and wisdom from invisible people we often ignore thinking they are dumb and poor and weak, because they are victims. Trust me, they are smart, and they know a lot about the world.

I understand that you’re currently traveling for work. What story are you working on?

I'm currently working on a story about Veeru Kohli, a bonded laborer in interior Sindh who was freed with the help of an NGO in Hyderabad called Green Rural Development Organization (GRDO). She is standing for elections now against established, powerful and rich feudals who have been threatening her and her supporters.

Kohli now lives in a place called Azad Nagar with two beds, five mattresses, cooking pots and a bank account with life savings of Rs. 2,800 (approx $27). Wanting to interview her took me to Azad Nagar in the outskirts of Hyderabad, where I met dozens of landless Haris [members of the scheduled Hindu caste] and farmers who had been freed either by Kohli's activism or by GRDO.

They all had gathered to greet me at the arrival, and complained about the media ignoring them (save news reports of Kohli standing for elections) and not supporting them when powerful politicians threatened their lives.

I hope to help them by writing about their stories, the strength that they show by standing with each other between threats on their lives and hefty offers of bribes. These are the people who change the fate of a nation: the poor, the dignified and the powerful.

A visit to Afghanistan is a never ending curiosity. No matter how many times one comes to this country it never fails to surprise. When I landed in Kabul a few days ago, I felt every bit as excited as I did on my first reporting assignment here in 2008.

In the last five years the capital city has witnessed many changes. Upon exiting the airport, a huge wedding hall with tinted glass grabs visitors’ attention. This structure was built in the last few years amid the city’s building boom, which has been in full swing since the departure of the Taliban in 2001. Wherever you go in Kabul, construction is underway, leaving you wondering whether people are really apprehensive about their future.

In the city’s north, multi-story housing complexes are springing up, while many returnees are constructing new houses after losing land during the Taliban’s reign.

Kabul’s building frenzy is just keeping pace with its burgeoning population. According to The New York Times, the city was built to accommodate around half a million people, yet five million call it home. One of them is my friend Amir, who has six brothers, all married. He’s currently building a new multistory house as their ancestral home has become too cramped.

To glimpse another major change to the city in recent years, one need only look to Kabul’s streets. Today a growing number of vehicles can be seen about town. According to the Afghanistan Analysts Network (ANN), a Kabul-based think tank, the city witnessed a tenfold increase in the number of vehicles on its roads from 2005 to 2010. Cars were almost entirely absent from Shahr-e Now, one of the capital’s main thoroughfares, as recently as 2002. There were even fewer vehicles on the road under the Taliban, who were notorious for confiscating them.

Traffic has led to a spike in the city’s pollution levels. Most of the vehicles sold in the city are used imports. The city’s swanky showrooms display second-hand cars. Toyota is perhaps the most visible brand.

Aside from the growing number of privately owned vehicles, in the last couple of years I have also noticed the growth of a car rental/mini cab company called Afghan Logistics & Tours. This is a welcome service in a country where trusting strangers is difficult and where getting around with an unfamiliar driver is not easy. The new company has won the confidence of many foreigners who now use the service without hesitation. It was a new experience for me to be able to arrange for a vehicle to go out to dinner without worrying about my security.

Meanwhile, advertising has also made its mark on the city, with billboards dotting the streets and mountains surrounding Kabul. Not long ago Mujahideen groups occupied these same mountains, from which they launched attacks on rival forces. Today their vantage points have been taken by ads for the city’s competing mobile networks. In downtown Kabul, billboards tout housing projects, government welfare schemes, Afghan television series, and university courses.

On the face of it, Kabul would seem to be a changed city. And on one level, this is true. But scratch the surface and you’ll soon detect undercurrents of fear and uncertainty. Residents of the capital are apprehensive about the city’s post-2014 future, when the majority of international troops are expected to leave.

My driver Shahpoor said, “I am not sure what is going to happen after 2014 but it is reassuring that Americans are not withdrawing all their troops.”

Ali, a shopkeeper next to my hotel, shares this view. He added, “It is not possible for the Taliban to rule Kabul again. The Afghan forces are capable of taking on the insurgent groups now. But who knows what will happen in the future.”

Time will tell whether Kabul’s hard-won progress will last. But for now, Afghanistan’s unpredictability keeps curiosity alive for the country.

The anti-Sikh riots of 1984 still haunt the ruling Indian National Congress. Almost three decades ago around 3,000 minority Sikhs were killed, allegedly at the instigation of local Congress leaders in Delhi in the aftermath of the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her two Sikh bodyguards, Beant Singh and Satwant Singh, on October 31, 1984.

According to numerous commissions of inquiry established to investigate the tragic incident, a number of local Congress politicians and police officials in Delhi  systematically instigated the raw sentiments of the mob. Despite these initial conclusions, the inquiry could not make much headway and in the majority of cases the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed closure reports.

Last week, however, a Delhi court set aside a closure report filed against senior politician Jagdish Tytler and asked the CBI to record the testimonies of all witnesses again, in a bid to establish the truth.

The reopening of the case has once again brought into focus a tragic chapter in modern Indian history and sparked a debate about justice for the victims.

According to media reports, a judicial inquiry in 2005 hinted at former Congress minister Tytler’s role in instigating the riot. The Congress leader, however, vehemently denies the accusations, claiming that he is being framed. He also claims that he was not present at the scene of the killings, but was attending Gandhi’s funeral when the riot broke out.

Ultimately, though, it’s not a question of one individual. It’s question of justice. It remains a mystery why no one has been held accountable for the deaths of so many. Even after installing Sikh Manmohan Singh as prime minister, the tragic episode from 1984 hangs like an albatross around the neck of the party.

Moreover, the subversion of justice in the case has emboldened right-wing forces in the country. A prime example came in 1992 when right-wing leaders from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) launched an agenda that led to the demolition of the 16th century Babri Mosque in Ayodhya.

The subsequent backlash against minority Muslims claimed many lives across the country. As in the 1984 riots, no one has been punished to date. On the contrary, BJP leaders like Lal Krishna Advani and others involved in the anti-Babri Mosque campaign came to occupy the center stage of national politics.

In 2002, around 2,000 Muslims were killed in Gujarat after fire broke out on a train coach carrying Hindu pilgrims in Godhra. Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi is alleged to have turned a blind eye to the violence. Although the victims’ families still await justice, Modi is now being touted as a BJP Prime Ministerial candidate.

These incidents underscore the ineffectiveness of India’s justice system, emboldening radical elements in the nation’s minority communities in turn. It is no secret that Sikh separatists remain active in Punjab and beyond, drawing their sustenance from the grievances of those who have been denied justice. The same is also true of India’s Muslim community, according to an article published last year in The Hindu.

All of these incidents are reminders of the dangers of deviating from a secular path. For the ruling Congress Party, it is time to allow a full investigation into the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Only then will the incident cease to haunt the party.

This month, inspirational women, change-makers and leaders the world over came together as part of Newsweek and The Daily Beast’s Women in the World Summit 2013 in New York.

The summit saw names such as Oprah Winfrey, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Angelina Jolie, Meryl Streep and a plethora of women activists, CEOs and leaders in attendance who spoke on and engaged in discussions about women’s rights, education, politics, violence and stories of hardship and triumph.

From Pakistan, Oscar-winning filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, along with two inspiring young Pakistani women, Humaira Bachal and Khalida Brohi, were part of a panel on education and empowerment for Pakistani women called “The Next Malalas,” moderated by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.

The panel was inspired by and named after Malala Yousafzai, a 15-year-old Pakistani teenage girl who was shot in October 2012 by the Taliban for her campaigning on behalf of girls’ education. The attack occurred while she was returning home on a school bus. Yousafzai, the youngest nominee ever for the Nobel Peace Prize, now lives in the UK where she is still recovering and continues to fight for girls’ education in Pakistan.

In the spirit of Yousafzai’s courage, panel member Obaid-Chinoy launched her documentary, Humaira: The Dream Catcher at the summit. The film traces fellow panel member Bachal’s remarkable journey.

Gaining an education with the help of her mother – without the knowledge of her father, who opposed women’s education – Bachal went on to establish her own school, Dream Model Street School, in a village in Karachi. Currently, the young activist’s school employs 22 volunteer teachers and has educated 1,200 children for the nominal fee of one cent per day.

“Education is a basic need and a fundamental right for every human being,” Bachal told NPR. “I want to change the way my community looks at education, and I will continue to do this until my last breath.”

Brohi, another activist like Bachal, runs her own initiative, the Sughar Women Program, which provides socioeconomic empowerment to Pakistani women in tribal areas by teaching and developing skills and providing basic education.

The result: beautiful, traditional fashion products with dazzling, colorful embroideries, stitched by the women of Sughar (a word that denotes a “skilled and confident woman” in the local language).

“Being passionate towards the issue and the mission is the first step in becoming a change-maker; it is when you really FEEL the burning need of what you want to do and what you have to achieve at a certain time,” Brohi told Ashoka India, an organization that supports social entrepreneurs. “To be passionate is when you are exactly feeling the pain that others feel and you are desperate to try your hardest for helping out in any way that you can.”

During the summit panel, Bachal said, “In Pakistan, every day a new Malala is born.” Indeed, it is true. The fight for women’s equality, from education to employment and beyond, will be an ongoing battle in Pakistan.

Thanks to the inspirational stories of women like Bachal and Brohi, a growing number of the nation’s women are standing up and contributing to the larger shift underway.

One such story comes from Maria Toorpakai Wazir,  a young girl from Waziristan (in Pakistan) who disguised herself as a boy to achieve her dream of becoming an ace squash player. Today Toorpaki is Pakistan’s top female squash player.

Then there is the recent story of Veero Kolhi, a Hindu woman in Pakistan’s Sindh province. After escaping a life of bonded labor against all odds, Kolhi is currently standing as an election candidate who hopes to bring justice and freedom to those still shackled.

The stories of Pakistani women who have taken a stand are numerous, moving, tragic, and yet encouraging. This movement of sorts has been tumultuously bubbling beneath the splintered surface of Pakistani society for a while.

One hopes that now, it is only a matter of time.

Sonya Rehman is a journalist based in Lahore, Pakistan. She can be reached at: sonjarehman@gmail.com

That South Asia is one of the world’s least integrated regions has been well chronicled. Historical tensions and regional rivalries have hampered intra-regional trade, with prime responsibility lying squarely on regional heavyweights India and Pakistan, which have fought three wars since their independence from Britain in 1947.

Proposals for a South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) to boost intra-regional trade from U.S. $11 billion in 2007 to U.S. $40 billion by 2015 seem like a pipedream. Intra-regional trade has languished for decades as only about 5 percent of the region’s total trade occurs between its nations, despite their geographical proximity and shared history. This contrasts with intra-regional trade in Africa and East Asia where the corresponding figures are 15 percent and 50 percent, respectively.

However, the latest trade figures indicate that two-way trade between India and Pakistan may have turned a corner. India’s exports to Pakistan increased 15 percent between April 2012 and February 2013 to U.S. $1.6 billion, up from U.S. $1.4 billion in the corresponding period last year. Meanwhile, Indian imports from Pakistan registered a 30 percent increase from U.S. $375 million to U.S. $488 million during the same period.

According to a report in the Indian Express, this expansion showed that India-Pakistan trade was approaching the levels of New Delhi’s economic relations with other neighbors, such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

While still modest, these figures are also the highest ever between the two countries, indicating that a recent thaw in diplomatic ties between the two South Asian rivals could be bearing fruit. The thaw comes after the fledgling India-Pakistan peace process, which began in 2004, but was suspended by India in 2008 when Pakistan-based militants carried out a terror attack on India’s financial hub, Mumbai, leaving 166 people dead.

A slew of high-level engagements between the two sides last year brought the dialogue process back on track. In April 2012, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari visited India on a day-long private visit during which he held talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The visit was followed by reciprocal visits by Pakistani and Indian foreign ministers in July and September, leading to the signing of a landmark visa agreement that eased travel restrictions between the two sides.

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a regional trade body, welcomed the agreement, saying that the new liberalized visa regime would significantly boost bilateral trade.

Further, last year the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government announced its intention to grant New Delhi’s long-standing demand for Most Favored Nation (MFN) status, but has since balked on the issue amid strong opposition at home. The chances that India will be granted MFN status will likely depend on the outcome of Pakistan’s elections in May.

Still, these tentative steps towards normalizing economic ties have wider implications for the region. For one, strengthening trade ties can help prevent deterioration in political relations between the nuclear-armed neighbors. Further, stronger economic ties can significantly increase the cost of conflict.

While it is too early to judge the extent of the positive influence of trade, these facts could potentially serve as catalysts for better ties between India and Pakistan, possibly paving the way for the resolution of more contentious issues such as the Kashmir dispute.

India’s eastern state of West Bengal made history in May 2011 when the All India Trinamool Congress, led by Mamata Banerjee, defeated the Left Front government that had ruled the state for 34 consecutive years. Two years later, however, Banerjee has disappointed many in the state, which has become a byword for backwardness and economic stagnancy over the past three decades.

In the latest of many unflattering reports on the state, media recently revealed that a number of cadres from the ruling party were allegedly involved in a bout of violence and vandalism on the campus of Presidency College in Kolkata.

The state was outraged over the large scale destruction to the campus as well as the violence against students, which included some threatening female students with rape. Students, professors and university leaders have taken to the streets in protest, demanding that the purported culprits be held legally responsible.

According to reports, the accused Trinamool members attacked the campus in retaliation for the heckling of Banerjee and West Bengal’s Finance Minister Amit Mitra in New Delhi on April 9 by activists from the Student Federation of India (SFI), a student wing of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M). The student protestors were angered by the death of an SFI leader in West Bengali police custody on April 2. Banerjee called the death “petty,” angering the students.

Political violence has been a reality in the state for quite some time, dating back to the 34-year reign of the Left Front government. Although many hoped that the Trinamool Congress would change this, the party has instead become a paragon of political intolerance.

According to an article in the Indian Express, the enormous political upheaval that resulted from the Trinamool Congress uprooting the Left from power has not brought the kind of changes many hoped for. Instead, the old power structures and oppressive methods of rule have only changed hands. Furthermore, Banerjee demonstrates her proud sense of insecurity by branding the slightest dissent as Maoism. Last year a Jadavpur University professor was even arrested for circulating a picture poking fun at Banerjee and Railway Minister Mukul Roy.

The party’s mandate in 2011 was not only to usher in a new political culture, but also to reenergize the state’s stagnant economy. However, little work has gone into changing West Bengal’s economic situation to date. Earlier this year, Banerjee held an investment summit in Kolkata, which failed to attract major investors, despite the fact that the area was once a leading industrial state in the pre-liberalization era.

While in power she has not made any significant attempts to change her image in the eyes of industrial leaders. Last year Banerjee withdrew her support from the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in Delhi on the issue of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the retail sector.

If Banerjee is to spur positive change in West Bengal, she must address the parochial political outlook and economic stagnation going forward.

On April 2, a landmark treaty regulating the U.S. $70 billion conventional weapons trade was approved by the 193-member United Nations General Assembly in New York. Besides regulating business in conventional arms, the UN Arms Trade Treaty - which received 154 votes - aims to link sales of arms to a country’s human rights record. The treaty also prohibits states from exporting conventional weapons in violation of arms embargoes, or weapons that would be used for acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or terrorism.

No wonder then, that chronic human rights abusers Syria, Iran and North Korea became the only three countries voting against the treaty. However, several key powers abstained from voting, including Russia, China and India – taking the gloss off what was otherwise a historic vote.

While India’s abstention disappointed many who were hoping to see the world’s largest democracy sign on to an important normative framework to regulate the global arms trade, it is fair to say that it was borne out of hard-nosed realism.

As the world’s largest conventional arms importer in 2012, representing 12 percent of all global imports, New Delhi is a significant stakeholder in the global arms trade. At the heart of India’s abstention were concerns that its military – which relies heavily on foreign arms imports – could be affected adversely by unilateral decisions by arms exporters.

Explaining India’s position, its chief negotiator Sujata Mehta said, “India cannot accept that the Treaty be used as an instrument in the hands of exporting states to take unilateral force majeure measures against importing states without consequences.”

India's worry stems from the concern that once the treaty comes into effect, the nation’s bilateral defense agreements could come under the treaty's purview. Article 7 of the resolution gives broad powers to the exporting country to make arms supply contingent upon an "export assessment" that could be abused to halt supplies. Without adequate safeguards, New Delhi deems the treaty to be skewed in favor of exporting nations.

More importantly, India’s abstention highlights its over-dependence on foreign arms amid a failure on its part to meet its own defense needs via domestic production. Currently, India buys over 70 percent of its arms requirements from the international market and is expected to spend U.S. $100 billion over the next decade on arms purchases.

This over-reliance on foreign arms amid a number of high-profile cases of corruption in defense purchases have slowed and even threatened the modernization of India’s military, prompting India’s Defense Minister A.K. Antony to call for increased indigenous defense production in February.

By contrast, other major arms importers like China have made impressive strides in increasing domestic production. A report released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) in March notes that China has replaced the United Kingdom to become the fifth largest arms exporter in the world, boosting its share of world arms exports from 2 percent to 5 percent between 2008-2012, an increase of 162 percent. 

Indeed, China’s massive military modernization drive has been matched by progress in the development of its military industry. However, India has failed to create a viable domestic arms manufacturing base, despite increasing its military spending in recent years. Part of the problem stems from its failure to create a strong policy environment that would allow the private sector to play a larger role in the defense industry. This problem has been compounded by vociferous opposition from public-sector unions.

Pending reforms, defense manufacturing in India remains under the purview of state-owned firms such as the Defense Research Development Organization (DRDO), which have been a byword for chronic inefficiency. DRDO’s major projects, including a program to build light combat aircraft as well as airborne early warning systems, are behind schedule by up to 13 years.

If anything, the approval of the arms trade treaty and India’s reservations about it should serve as a wake-up call for New Delhi to make concerted efforts to overhaul its domestic defense industry. This means allowing private players to play a leading role in research and development, driving innovation in the sector.