It has been a rather long learning curve for New Delhi to separate presumed transcendental religious solidarity and the logic of national self-interest in engaging the Middle East.
Contestation is intense in this election, and the incoming Indian government—irrespective of its composition—will be under pressure to perform.
The problem is not the lack of big ideas within Indian political class. There are a host of other reasons that limit public engagement on foreign policy. Few parties believe foreign policy is of any importance in winning elections.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down the RBI’s February 2018 circular on bad loans highlights something significant about the state machinery—the extent to which it can be a source of risk for private businesses.
Carnegie India, in partnership with the Vedica Scholars Programme for Women, hosted the inaugural talk of the Anahita Speaker Series on “The Architecture of Diplomacy.”
Statutory regulatory authorities are bound by the same principles of administrative law as other government agencies, as defined by the judiciary from time to time.
The financial system plays an important role in mobilizing savings, allocating capital in the economy, monitoring corporations, providing liquidity, helping individuals and firms manage risks, facilitating payments, and other economic functions.
Before India’s political scene got so intensely polarized, there was a time when the Opposition celebrated the government’s national security achievements. It also offered close scrutiny of government policies on science and technology.
The responsiveness of laws and policies to citizens’ preferences and conduct, has been the central theme of extensive literature focusing on political science and administrative law.
Prospects for a sensible neighborhood policy can’t rest solely on having single-party governments at the center and ‘responsible’ chief ministers in the border states. India needs a measure of political consensus on regional policies.