Abstracts of Lectures at CMF

 

1. Professor Baldev Raj Nayar, Professor

Emeritus, McGill University, Montreal

“The Paradox of Globalization and India’s Halting

March to Common Market: The Political Economy of

Tax Reform under Federalism”, 11 November 2010.

Abstract

Prof. Nayar discussed the paradox of India’s shift

to globalization and the subsequent policy

adjustment that together seem to have favoured

the fostering of a common market, even as it took

account of the difficulties that are involved in

working within a framework of federalism and a

partisan multiparty system.

The paradox arises from the juxtaposition of

the critique directed against globalization and the

actual political process on the ground. The critics

of globalization have posited market

segmentation, even economic and national

disintegration, as one of the preeminent

consequences of globalization and the associated

phenomenon of economic liberalization. But,

contrary to the prognostications of the critics, it

seems to Nayar that globalization has,

paradoxically, been instrumental in engendering

a process of transforming India’s existing highly

segmented economy into a genuine common

market, though the last mile in the journey toward

such a market has yet to be traversed.

In short, he argued that globalization and

common market are integrally joined together,

with globalization compelling India, as it were,

to endeavour to foster a common market. There

seems to be a certain inexorable logic that leads

globalization to make for the paradoxical result

of developing a domestic common market, rather

than tending toward market segmentation as the

critics believe. The connecting link between

globalization and common market is the quest for

economic efficiency. Of course, needless to add, the

state as an institutional variable that sits astride

as a gatekeeper between globalization and

common market has had a critical role in the final

outcome.

In analyzing the paradox of globalization and

moving forward to a national common market,

Nayar focused on one of the crucial elements in

promoting a common market – the establishing

of an appropriate system of indirect taxation that

fosters, rather than hinders, the free flow of goods

and services in the domestic market. In exploring

this theme, he looked at (1) the relationship

between globalization and tax reform; (2) the

evolution of tax reform after economic

liberalization, including the role of the state in that

evolution; and (3) the motivations in tax reform.

2. Dr. Rupak Chattopadhyay, Vice-President,

Forum of Federations, Ottawa

“Financing and Governance of Capital Cities in Federal

Systems”, 6 December 2010.

Abstract

Dr. Chattopadhyay argues that Capital cities, like

other cities, are places where people live and

work, use local services, and engage in political

activity. Yet capital cities are different than other

cities. Not only do they host the national

government and principal national institutions,

they also play a unique cultural and symbolic role

in the country. The national capital role and the

local role sometimes come in conflict with each

other. This conflict can be exacerbated in federal

countries where, if the capital is treated like any

other city, it would normally fall under the

jurisdiction of a state or province and leave a

limited role for the federal government. Capital

cities in federal countries also differ from capital

cities in unitary countries because federal

countries are more diverse and this means that

federal capitals have the added responsibility of

reflecting this diversity while at the same time

being as neutral as possible with respect to

individual states or provinces. Even within

federal countries, there are significant differences

among capital cities in terms of governing

structures, roles and responsibilities, resources,

and the treatment of capital cities by the federal

government. He presented findings on the

governance of capital cities and draws on their

earlier work comparing eleven federal capitals.

13

3. Prof. Jan Wouters, Jean Monnet Chair Ad

Personam EU and Global Governance,

Professor of International Law and

International Organizations and Director of

the Leuven Centre for Global Governance

Studies - Institute for International Law at the

University of Leuven

“Current State and Outlook for Federalism in Belgium

and the European Union”, 12 January 2011.

Abstract

Belgium, at the heart of the European Union, is a

country whose federal system displays a number

of unique features that go some length in the

direction of confederalism. Interestingly,

Belgium’s federalism has shown a “centrifugal”

tendency over the past four decades, coinciding

with another “federal” process affecting the same

people and territory, namely, the European

integration process. Over the past six decades,

the European Community, succeeded in 2009 by

the European Union, have seen a remarkable

transfer of important powers from Member States

to the European level. The Lisbon Treaty, which

entered into force on 1 December 2009, constitutes

the newest phase in this “centripetal” process of

an “ever closer union”. In his lecture, Professor

Wouters contrasted both evolutions and sketched

the outlook for federalism in Europe and Belgium.

4. Dr. Louise Tillin, Lecturer at the India

Institute at King’s College, London.

“Remapping India: What can we learn from the creation

of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand?” 25

January 2011.

Abstract

India is one of the most populous and diverse

countries in the world, yet its people are divided

into the fewest subunits of any federal system. Her

paper addressed the dynamics of post-linguistic

reorganisation, focusing in particular on the

reasons for the creation of Chhattisgarh,

Jharkhand and Uttarakhand, all formed in the year

2000 from the large, predominantly Hindispeaking

states of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and

Uttar Pradesh. It will set out a framework drawn

from historical institutionalism to explain border

change in India’s federal system, and an argument

for state creation in 2000 that focuses on dynamics

at three levels of the federal system - the sub-state,

state, and national levels. She goes on to ask to

what extent ongoing debates about the possible

future reorganisation of borders in Andhra

Pradesh, Maharashtra or Uttar Pradesh, for

example, bear similarities with the political

process that lay behind the last episode of state

creation in 2000.

5. Prof. Christophe Jaffrelot, former Director of

the Centre for International Studies and

Research, Sciences-Po, Paris and a Member of

the Centre National de la Recherche

Scientifique (CNRS) France

“Minorities in Urban Areas: Case Study of Bhopal and

Ahmadabad”, 15 February, 2011.

Abstract

Using the contours of Geography, Prof. Jaffrelot

made an attempt to understand the configuration

of the two cities. Ahemedabad has never been a

Muslim city. It presents a case of communal

tensions in 1969 Hindu workers clashed with

Muslim workers; in 1985 caste and communal

conflicts; in 1992 Ramjanmabhoomi movement;

and in 2002 state-sponsored pogram to cleanse the

Rashtra.

There are Muslim groups like Boras Memons,

yet business hardly goes beyond local issues.

Juhapura, called as “mini Pakistan”, presents the

case of locality of ghettosisation and

marginalisation of Muslims. It is a deprived

locality which moves by self help group education.

Safety and security are the two issues concerning

the ghetto. From old city to the industrialised belt

to Juhapura, ghettoisation has paradoxical effects

in this city.

Bhopal presents a different pattern, where

instead of marginalisation at the end of city, the

Muslims are marginalised at the centre. The

walled city is on the bank of the lake. The

percentage of Muslim population has increased

with the time. Abolition of jagirdari system lead

to palaces being converted into hotels.

“Emotional” politics leads to local political elites

driven and chosen from community sentiments.

Irrespective of vote bank politics, new buildings

have come up. Muslims have withdrawn from the

walled city.

The ray of hope in the two scenarios lies in

the development of the middle class, and informal

movements towards integration.

6. Prof. Sumanasiri Liyanage, Department of

Economics, University of Peradeniya, Sri

Lanka

“Identities and Autonomy: Forgotten Issues in Post-

Conflict Policy Perspective in Sri Lanka”, 28 February

2011.

Abstract

The armed conflict in Sri Lanka finally came to an

end on May 18, 2009 as the security forces of the

Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) had succeeded

in defeating comprehensively the Liberation

Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The way in which

the armed conflict between the GoSL and LTTE

14

came to an end on May 18, 2009 was substantially

different from that of February 22, 2002. In the

latter case, it came to an end through the signing

of a ceasefire agreement (CFA) by two contending

parties facilitated by the Royal Norwegian

Government. Even prior to the CFA of 2002, the

armed conflict ended on many occasions as an

outcome of written or unwritten agreement

between the two contenders of the armed conflict.

However, all these agreements failed to produce

perpetual or long-lasting peace for multiple

reasons and the failures had eventually led to

more atrocious resumption of armed

confrontation between two contending parties.

Forthcoming Events:

Dr. Wilfried Swenden, University of Edinburgh,

UK, and currently visiting faculty, Delhi

University, will deliver a special lecture on 14th

April, 2011 on “Is the United Kingdom Federal:

Devolution and Plurinationalism in Comparative

Perspective”.

Research Notes, Book Reviews and

Publications

Coordinated By: Veena Kukreja

Uneasy Peace in Sri Lanka

By Sumanasiri Liyanage

The peace process may be separated into two

phases. The ending of an armed conflict and/or

direct violence marks the first phase of peacebuilding,

while the second phase includes an

addressing of deep-rooted issues that are linked

with the genesis and the development of the

conflict. Are these two phases inter-linked? Is the

second phase independent from and neutral to

the way in which first phase is concluded?

The conventional conflict discourse posits

that there is a nexus between distinct phases of

peace-building or conflict transformation

although reversibility of the process especially in

the short and medium term has not been ruled

out. The implicit assumption is that peace process

to progress through these distinct phases,

negative phase or peace-writ-small or peacemaking

should be achieved through negotiation

between two or more conflict parties. However,

conflicts always do not end through negotiations.

Negotiated settlement is only one way of ending

armed conflicts. Internal wars in which the state

is a party may be ended in multiple ways.