With the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in office for three and a half years, and having a poor track record to show for it, the government is now trying to revamp its image ahead of the 2014 elections.

A recent announcement of a cash transfer scheme is being touted by the Congress-led government as a game changer. The idea to transfer subsidies directly into the accounts of the intended beneficiaries has suddenly stirred new hopes in the demoralized party, which has been battered by corruption charges and is widely believed to be responsible for the economic paralysis the country finds itself in.

Under the scheme, families entitled to subsidies, pensions, and other form of entitlements will get these transferred directly into their bank accounts. The basis of this transfer is a Unique Identity Number (UID) or Aadhaar card (a 12-digit individual identification number) that the Indian government has been issuing to each citizen. This UID is very unique where all your personal and professional details can be traced by entering a twelve digit ID number into a database.

Staring early next month, this scheme will initially run in 51 districts spread over 16 states. By the end of the year the program will reach almost every part of the country.

It is believed that most of the subsidies the current government appropriates fail to reach in totality the intended beneficiaries due to intermediaries and leakages at various stages. The government argues that by transferring the money directly into the accounts of the people, such leakage and corruption can be curtailed. 

But the problem is not with the intention but rather the program's implementation. 

Newspaper reports suggest that only around 210 million (out of a population of 1.2 billion) have a UID or Aadhar card. The people who miss out are disproportionally likely to be those below the poverty line, the main target of the cash transfer, who often lack a bank account. With so many impediments and the 2014 elections fast approaching, how successful the scheme will be remains questionable at best.

But the government seems unconcerned by these practical considerations and is hoping that the mere idea of a direct cash transfer will score it enough political points to bring the Congress party to power again, much as an earlier scheme, the MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Act), did in the 2009 elections.

Concerned that this may work, a large part of the opposition is against the transfer scheme claiming that Congress is essentially bribing voters. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the main opposition party, is struggling to come up with a logical criticism of the new scheme, however.

The Congress is taking a great leap of faith. It hopes to turn the tide of popular anger. But it will not be easy. 
 

India and China will have the 16^th round of talks on their boundary dispute on December 3 and 4 against the backdrop of a serious passport controversy. The two Asian giants have not made much progress in their previous rounds of talks and neither side will be expecting any concrete deliverables from the upcoming round between India's National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon and Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo.

That said the upcoming round of talks in Beijing may well be different from previous meetings as the two sides may for the first time agree to create a progress report on the boundary talks under the Special Representatives’ mechanism which started in 2003. This in itself won’t be a notable achievement as the two SRs (Menon and Dai) would be presenting the jointly devised report to their respective governments.

Menon made a significant remark ahead of the boundary talks noting that, "We are in the process of agreeing on a framework to settle the boundary and the next step, hopefully the third stage, is to actually agree on a boundary. Right now we are at the second stage."

The border talks will be held close on the heels of the recent passport dispute between the two countries. China recently began issuing passports that included a map showing all the areas that China claims as part of the Chinese state. This included, Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin, the disputed areas between China and India.

Last week, in response, the Indian embassy in Beijing started a new practice of stamping the new Chinese passports with a map of India showing Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin as Indian territories. The Chinese government has so far printed over a million such e-passports.

On November 26, Menon appeared at an elite gathering of diplomats and strategic analysts in New Delhi. The event was hosted by the leading Indian think tank Observer Research Foundation (ORF). I asked Menon about his thoughts on the passport maps controversy. Menon, who’s a career diplomat and not a politician despite his ministerial status in the government, sought to downplay the controversy:

"I think you need to see these things in some perspective. We do have differences on where the boundary lies. We are discussing them. We have made progress in dealing with that… What has changed? Chinese have a view on where the boundary lies which is why we are having discussions on the boundary because we have differences on where the boundary is. The Chinese chose to put a watermark on their passports which shows the boundaries as they see it. We show our boundary as we see it on visas that we issue. So, what has changed? On our documents, we continue to show what we regard as our boundary; they show their claims on their documents."

Interestingly, Menon’s boss, External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid’s, reaction on the issue was much stronger. Khurshid, a politician, had described the Chinese move as “unacceptable.”

It is not India alone that has rebuffed China over the passport map row, with other nations like Vietnam and the Philippines also strongly protesting Beijing’s new passports. Vietnam too has followed in India’s footsteps and has started issuing visas on separate visa sheets stapled to the new Chinese passports.

The Vietnamese authorities have lodged a formal protest with the Chinese embassy in Vietnam after new e-passports issued by China have depicted a map showing disputed territories in South China Sea as falling under Chinese sovereignty. The government of Philippines too has lodged a protest with Beijing’s embassy over the new e-passports.

The development shows that China is increasingly getting a tit-for-tat response from its neighbors and India is not alone in rebuffing Beijing as China continues to push the envelope over the boundary dispute. It remains to be seen whether the new Chinese leadership will continue with such policies.

The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) bloc has begun planning its own development bank and a new bailout fund which would be created by pooling together an estimated $240 billion in foreign exchange reserves, according to diplomatic sources. To get a sense of how significant the proposed fund would be, the fund would be larger than the combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of about 150 countries, according to Russia and India Report.

Many believe the BRICS countries are interested in creating these institutions because they are increasingly dissatisfied by Western dominated institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). For example, although the European debt crisis has allowed BRICS countries to push for more influence at the IMF, they currently only hold about a combined 11% of the Fund’s voting shares. By way of comparison, the U.S. holds a 16.75% voting share, allowing it to veto any major decision, which require an 85% supermajority, while the United Kingdom and France both have larger voting shares than any of the BRIC countries singularly.

The new institutions were first discussed in March during the 4^th BRICS summit in New Delhi. A subsequent special working group was set up by the BRICS in June to hash out the details. If all goes to plan, the proposed development bank and bailout mechanism will be formally established at the 5^th BRICS summit in Durban, South Africa in March 2013.

In setting up the development bank, the BRICS would be mounting a challenge to global institutions like the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which attach political conditions to the low-interest loans they disburse to developing countries. In contrast, the BRICS development bank is expected to offer non-conditional loans at a higher interest rate. At the same time, it has been suggested that the BRICS bank could augment the World Bank by funding projects in industries that the World Bank does not, such as biofuels, large dams and nuclear power plants, which don’t meet the World Bank’s environmental standards.

The proposed bailout mechanism, on the other hand, could act as an alternative to global financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund. If so, the bailout fund could also significantly enhance the BRICS countries international stature and influence. At the same time, this bloc is reportedly considering linking the bailout fund partially or in whole to the IMF or another Bretton Woods institution, much as ASEAN+3 decided to do in establishing the Chiang Mai Initiative, a similar pooled fund designed to inject liquidity into markets and minimize the impact of external shocks.  Earlier this year the Chiang Mai Initiative boosted the size of its fund to $240 billion, the same amount as the BRICS are said to be considering.

One potential stumbling block the BRICS face is deciding what currency(s) to use for the mutual fund and development bank. For a while now, China has been pushing for its currency, the yuan, to be added to the Special Drawing Rights (SDR), which is the IMF’s international reserve asset based on a basket of currencies. China is likely to view the BRICS institutions as an avenue in which to boost the international statue of its currency. Accordingly, it is likely to advocate including the yuan as one of the currencies the proposed institutions will use. The other member states, however, are similarly likely to resist Chinese pressure in this area, and instead push for using the U.S. dollar or the IMF’s SDR, which includes the euro, Japanese yen, British pound sterling, and the U.S. dollar.

On the morning of November 21, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government executed Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving gunman in the November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack. What is striking about the execution of Kasab, a Pakistani national, was that it was carried out in almost complete secrecy.

This is all the more remarkable when one considers that this is the first time in the history of independent India that a foreigner has been executed in the country. Politically speaking, Kasab’s hanging is a development fraught with deep foreign and domestic implications.

The government accorded budget-level secrecy to Kasab’s hanging and the news of his execution came as a complete surprise to all but a few top officials. In fact, Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde told reporters that even UPA Chairwoman Sonia Gandhi was not informed of the execution beforehand.

To the public, the execution seemed unlikely even while the Indian government secretly began its “Operation Kasab” several weeks ago. Sources said President Pranab Mukherjee had rejected Kasab’s mercy plea on November 5 (though this was only made public recently) and signed the necessary orders. This was followed by Union Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde and the government of the Indian state of Maharashtra, where Kasab was excuted, also signing the necessary orders on November 7 and 8, respectively. About a week later Union Home Secretary RK Singh formally told Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai in a letter that the decision on Kasab’s execution had been made while ordering that the convict’s family in Pakistan to be notified. Kasab himself was informed of the decision on November 12; 9 days before his hanging. On the night of November 19 he was moved from Mumbai’s Arthur Road jail to Pune’s Yerawada jail, which is authorized to host executions.

Kasab’s execution also had international consequences. For example, just days before the Indian government opposed a non-binding UN resolution against the death penalty that no less than 130 countries supporting the resoultion. 

A more delicate matter was how to handle the situation with Pakistan, which Kasab was a citizen of. India informed Pakistan of the impeding execution on Tuesday, the day before the execution, but Pakistan has not acknowledged this communication at the time of this writing. Indeed, Pakistani officials stationed in India refused to accept a formal letter from Indian officials about the imminent hanging, forcing the latter to fax a copy of it to Pakistan.

On Monday India and China held a meeting at the prime ministerial level for the 14^th time since Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took office in May 2004. The meeting, which was held on the sidelines of the East Asia Summit in Phnom Penh, will likely be the last one Singh and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao hold in their current capacities as Wen is expected to step down in March of next year.

Earlier this year Singh called Wen his “close friend.” On Monday Wen described his many meetings with Singh over the years as “memorable.”

In December the two sides will hold the next round of the Indo-Sino boundary talks in Beijing, diplomatic sources said this week. The exact dates are likely to be agreed upon later this month when representatives from both nations meet in New Delhi for the India-China Strategic Economic Dialogue. National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon will represent India at the border talks, while China’s delegation will be led by State Councilor Dai Bingguo, Menon’s counterpart. The parties held the 15^th round of talks on the border issue last January.

In briefing the media on the Singh-Wen meeting in Phnom Penh on Monday, Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai quoted the Chinese Premier as saying, “On the boundary question we have continued an active dialogue between the Special Representatives. And meanwhile, even though the dialogue has not resolved all our differences, we have set in place a joint mechanism to ensure peace and tranquility on the border.”

Beijing-based Xinhua News reported that Wen had followed up these comments by emphasis that Indian-Chinese cooperation, “not only benefited the people of the two countries, but also helped to promote world peace and prosperity.” Wen went on to call for stronger cooperation between the two countries, particularly on economic issues.

Two-way trade between Beijing and New Delhi reached $74 billion in 2011, a $12.2 billion increase from the year before. The two countries have pledged to increase this number to $100 billion by 2015. India has expressed some concern, however, about the imbalanced nature of this trade, which last year reached $27 billion in China’s favor.

Wen pledged to address this issue during his meeting with Singh on Monday, but didn’t offer much in the way of specifics.

Mathai told reporters that Wen said China is, "looking forward to gradual balancing of trade and they (China) were cognizant of India's particular interest in these areas."

While the Wen-Singh meeting ended without any concrete deliverables being agreed upon, the mere fact that Asia’s two top powers continue to engage each other actively and consistently at the highest levels of government is no small achievement in itself. 

Salman Khurshid seems to be enjoying his new position as the Minister of External Affairs, one of four CCS (Cabinet Committee on Security) ministries (the others are Home, Defense, and Finance). Notably, Khurshid’s promotion to the head of this key ministry has shielded him from having to engage in domestic political issues, which was a quite welcome perk for Khurshid in light of the amount of criticism he has faced as of late from activist-turned-politician Arvind Kejriwal.

On Friday Khurshid held one of his first press conferences with print and electronic media outlets since taking his new position. The event, a breakfast at the Hyderabad House in New Delhi, was attended by some sixty journalists who endured the chilly weather and early hours in order to attend. The breakfast meeting signaled a changed public face for the former Union Law Minister. Throughout the hour-long conversation with journalists he was not asked a single question about Kejriwal, or about the India Against Corruption (IAC) leader’s accusations that Khurshid and his wife, Louise Fernandes, had misappropriated funds from their NGO.

Kejriwal had gone so far as to visit Khurshid’s parliamentary district to expose him in front of his constituents, which had prompted Khurshid to threaten that Kejriwal might be able to travel to his district of, Farrukhabad, but there was no guarantee that he would be able to return (Khurshid would later say his statement had been taking out of context). Despite the fiery rhetoric Kejriwal’s November 1^st rally in Farrukhabad was held without incident.

During his breakfast with journalists, Khurshid was asked just one political question relating to the government’s decision of allowing Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail, which the minister dodged. The message seemed unambiguous: Khurshid would not answer any political questions.

Just hours later, however, Khurshid did entertain some political questions when he briefly met with TV journalists at his residence. The difference in the two settings being that in the latter he was asked for his views on Rahul Gandhi’s political future. Khurshid did not attempt to mask his eagerness to see Rahul take on a larger role and lauded the Congress Party’s decision to elevate Rahul as the head of its coordination committee for the May 2014 general elections. "Our party is very excited. Now it is clear who our commander is, whose footsteps we have to follow," Khurshid declared.

It is often said that Bollywood is India’s greatest brand ambassador all over the globe perhaps even giving the Taj Mahal a run for its money. However, South Korea has been largely left untouched by Bollywood thus far. This is likely to chage in the coming years.

Many Indians viewing the South Korea-filmed Gangster were enthralled by the exotic locales and jazzy trains that looked far different from anything Bollywood had used as a backdrop in the past. This was the first Bollywood movie that was filmed in Korea – it was also the last.

Last week I had an engaging discussion with Charm Lee, head of the South Korean Tourism Organization, and five of my colleagues. Lee, a tall, well-built German who now calls South Korea home, seemed taken aback by the number of Bollywood questions I presented him with. He conceded that the South Korean government was seriously considering the possibility of promoting Korea as a film shooting destination, though the West and even Southeast Asian countries had a clear lead over South Korea in the contest.

China too is already known to have started work on developing an entire island as a film shooting hub, something Lee asked his advisors to take note of. Lee also conceded that a major issue plaguing the effort was the acute shortage of hotel rooms in Korea, which limited its ability to attract big functions like Bollywood’s IIFA awards that are usually held in Macau.

Brand Bollywood’s penetration of the South Korean market is an idea whose time has come. Films like Krissh, Kal Ho Na Ho, Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge and Rang De Basanti have earned millions of dollars from overseas markets, and among Bollywood films are already catching on among the PSY-crazed South Korean youth, who know Bollywood actors like Shah Rukh Khan, Salman Khan and Aamir Khan quite well.

Last July, India’s Border Security Force (BSF) uncovered a freshly-constructed 400-meter tunnel on the Wagah-Attari border, the designated entry/exit point at the India-Pakistan border. Since the initial uproar triggered by the sensational discovery dissipated, India has said little about what it intends to do with the tunnel, which was obviously built with ulterior motives in mind.

South Korea offers a potential model for India to follow.

In 1974 South Korea discovered suspicious structures near the international border separating the two Koreas.  After an extensive investigation South Korean authorities uncovered a sophisticated network of underground tunnels that its northern neighbor had built for espionage and military purposes. The longest of these tunnels stretched an incredible 1,650 meters.

The South Koreans chose not to demolish the tunnels, however, which provided damning evidence of North Korea’s malign intentions towards Seoul. Instead South Korean authorities decided to restore the tunnels and convert them into a tourist spot for people wishing to visit the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) on the 38^th parallel.

In constructing its own tunnels, the South Koreans used Tunnel Boring Machines, a technology that residents of Delhi are familiar with given its usage in recent years as part of the expansion of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). The freshly-built tunnel was added to one of the original North Korean ones, which this writer visited on Wednesday. The massive project took decades and it was only in 2004 that the South Koreans put the border tunnels on its tourist map in a big way.

Since then it has enjoyed outstanding success. Despite the government only opening 265 of the tunnel’s 1,600 meters to the general public, more than three thousand tourists visit the tunnels on an average day. This number skyrockets during the peak season between September and November, when twenty or even thirty thousand tourists may visit the tunnel on any given day. With admission to the tunnel costing eight U.S. dollars per person, the South Korean government is seeing a sizeable return on its investment.

Thus, a North Korean malevolent act was converted into an economic boon by the enterprising South Koreans. The obvious question in the India-Pakistan context is: why can’t Indians do the same?  

Social activist Anna Hazare, 74, may be a big name in India. Anna’s former deputy, the activist turned-politician, Arvind Kejriwal, may have also increased his stature in India in recent months. Gujarat chief minister and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) rising star, Narendra Modi, may be nursing prime ministerial ambitions.

But here is a reality check for all three: on the global stage, they remain relatively unknown. Not even quality Korean journalists from South Korea’s most prominent outlets have heard of the three men. Instead the Koreans pique up at the mention of the Gandhis – Sonia and her son Rahul. Needless to say, the former Prime Ministers from the Gandhi family-- like Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi-- are very well known in Korea.

This was made clear to me today when I, as part of a six-member Indian journalists’ delegation, interacted with the movers and shakers of the Korean media in Seoul. The visit of the Indian journalists delegation, which is in Korea as part of the India-Korea Media Exchange Program, was organized by the Korea Press Foundation (KPF). In many ways, the KPF serves as a bridge between corporate entities and the South Korean government.

KPF Executive Director Hyun-Ho Kim had a freewheeling session with the visiting Indian journalists. When asked whether he had heard of Hazare, Kejriwal or Modi, he and his senior colleagues appeared totally blank. Kim’s response revealed it all: “Are they actors?”

South Korea’s traditional media is currently under unprecedented strain due to the greater competition it faces from new media. As circulation has declined so too have profits. Kim asked whether the same thing was happening in India. To this I replied that unlike Korea and the West, only ten percent of Indians current enjoy internet access. Samir Jain, Vice-Chairman of India’s biggest media house, Bennett Coleman and Company Limited (BCCL), has gone on record as saying in a recent interview with The New Yorker that he does not envision Indian print media facing a threat from the new media like Kindle or Ipad editions of newspapers for another 15 years, at least.

India has always been interested in American elections. As a matter of fact there has always been an abiding interest in anything that takes place in America, good or bad. And it is not just from a cynical point of view. Few realize that there are close to 3 million people of Indian origin in the United States. Many of them have taken America as their adopted land and settled for good; and many others hoping for permanent residency first obtain American visas.

There are thousands of Indian students who make their way to American Universities every year and there are close to 250,000 people of Indian origin who are illegally in the country, hoping against hopes that a favorable ruling will on the way soon from the Congress!

The Indian American community is glued to the American electoral process, not just as a bystander but actively participating and involving itself in everything from fundraising to campaigning. Prominent Indian Americans in the last several years have aligned themselves with both Democrats and Republicans and doled out cash generously. And the community has taken pride in the fact that frontline Republicans like Governor Bobby Jindal and Governor Nikkie Hailey have been considered as "running mates."

So what is so special about November 6? The day after the first Presidential debate in Denver many prominent Indian newspapers featured stories on their front pages claiming that the incumbent President Barack Obama somehow "lost" the first round to his Republican rival, Mitt Romney. And many in various media outlets did not forget to make the point that although Obama held on to a slender lead in the opinion polls, 67 percent according to one post-first debate poll showed that it was Romney that came away the "winner."

There are at least three things that come to mind when one takes a look at India and the American Presidential scene—the official perspective, a look from that of a common person, with or without any links to the United States, and the academic community along with intellectuals who see the larger picture beyond "The Race for The White House."

Official India does not pick sides in the Presidential election. In fact bilateral relations have developed to such an extent that it really does not matter who takes office after November 6. In the last fifteen years successive leaders in Washington and New Delhi have placed such a premium on enhancing relations that there is simply no looking back. Every now and then there is a public spat but the bottom line realization has always been that differences between two vibrant democracies are bound to happen, politically, economically and strategically.

What Official India concerns itself with is American foreign policy globally and in the Asia-Pacific, especially as it relates to China and Pakistan. Globally in the ongoing war against terror there is no mistaking where these two democracies stand, and Washington is acutely aware of the fact that a young democracy like India has been a consistent victim of state sponsored terror almost since Independence.

Yet it rattles the Officialdom here in India that any administration would continue to dole out billions of dollars to Pakistan for so-called "fighting terror" when Washington knows full well that these funds are being diverted for other purposes. But the bottom line, at least in private, has also been that it is in the best interests of India and the United States to keep Pakistan from disintegrating, which would be an absolute disaster not just for South Asia but for the world.

In the last several years what has come to attract the attention of the average person in India has been the issue of skilled Visas—generally referred to as the H1B. That these numbers have come down from an all time high of 195,000 to just 65,000 is just one side of the story. The other part is the anguish that both Republicans and Democrats are now employing anti-outsourcing rhetoric with some states crafting legislation that prevents jobs from going overseas. What many in India do not realize is that during an election year frenzy no Presidential candidate wants to be left behind in this anti-outsourcing bandwagon for fear of being seen as "soft" on an issue that is deemed important in economically troubled times.

To the common knowledgeable person in India, an American Presidential Election is something amazing—the sheer stamina through the primaries and caucuses, candidates falling by the way side, media gunning for stories on private lives that are taboo in an Indian setting, the billions of dollars spent over a period of two years or so, the national conventions, the raft of opinion polls, the electoral college and finally the day that really matters. Two democracies running essentially the same political show but through totally different processes.

And then a serious student of American politics in India, the academic and intellectual community, poses a different sort of question—what will be the composition of the American Congress after November 6? Assuming that the House of Representatives remains with the Grand Old Party, what is the story in the Senate? Will the Democrats hold ground given that they are defending 23 out of the 33 seats up for grabs and that the Republicans need to win only 14 out of 33 to take control? What are the implications for domestic and foreign policies and its impact on India? The learned audience in India knows full well that not all things get done by Executive fiat in the White House.

The expert community on American politics are convinced no matter who comes to the White House on November 6, the stakes for the United States and the world are very clear—the country will have to come out of its economic slump and Washington will have to play a convincing role in global politics, be it with respect to China, the so-called Arab Spring or in dealing with Iran. It is one thing to want to force Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions but how a Democratic or a Republican administration is going about this business is a different matter entirely.

The Bush administration paid the price not just for America but for the world at large by taking its eye off Afghanistan and the war on terror by getting into a gross misadventure in Iraq. The question now is if an Obama or Romney administration will continue with diplomacy, tightening the financial noose or showing off its military wares in the Strait of Hormuz regarding Iran.

Dr. Sridhar Krishnaswami is the Head of the School of Media Studies, SRM University, Chennai, India. Previously he was a senior journalist in the Washington Bureaus of The Hindu and The Press Trust of India between 1995 and 2008. Prior to that he served as The Hindu’s Special Correspondent for Southeast Asia, where he was based in Singapore.