Day: July 1, 2024

Georgia country profile  BBC

Armenia News  news.am

‘Don’t trust the banks.’ Sen. Menendez’s sister takes the stand to defend her brother  messenger-inquirer

US says peace agreement between Azerbaijan, Armenia ‘within reach’  Anadolu Agency | English

NPR News: 07-01-2024 7PM EDT

Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoices

NPR Privacy Policy

Menendez’s sister takes the stand | Video  NJ Spotlight News

California’s emission mandates do an excellent job of increasing the cost of electricity, products, and fuels to its citizens.

In California, the economy depends on affordable, reliable, and ever-cleaner electricity and fuels. Unfortunately, policymakers are driving up California’s electric and gas prices, and California now has the highest electricity and fuel prices in the nation.

Governor Newsom remains oblivious to the fact that “Mandatory Emissions (just in wealthy countries) To Achieve Net-Zero Is A Fool’s Game”. The Governor also remains reluctant, or incapable, of participating in conversations about Basic Energy Literacy questions.

Simply put, in the healthy and wealthy countries, every person, animal, or anything that causes emissions to rise could vanish off the face of the earth, or even die off, and global emissions will still explode in the coming years and decades ahead over the population and economic growth of China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Tanzania.

China, India, and Indonesia are three of the largest emissions generators, the same countries that do not have the financial wherewithal or technical capabilities to reduce or capture anything!

A careful examination of the global supply chain needs for electricity, products, and fuels for the population trends strongly suggests that “net zero” is a delusion as the end of crude oil that is manufactured into all the products and transportation fuels that built the world to eight billion, would be the end of civilization as “unreliable electricity” from breezes and sunshine cannot manufacture anything.

Today, California imports more electricity than any other US state, more than twice the amount of Virginia, the second largest importer of electricity. California typically receivesbetween one-fifth to one-thirdof its electricity supply from outside of the state.

• Over the last two decades, the state retired 11 coal-fired power plants that were providing continuous uninterruptible electricity.
• The San Onfre Nuclear Generating Station closed in 2013, that was also providing continuous uninterruptible electricity.
• Electricity prices have increased more than 98% over the last 15 years.

Texas and California have historically consumed the most gasoline in the United States.In 2021:

• Texas consumed 38.55 million gallons of gasoline per day, which was 11% of the country’s total.
• California consumed 33.31 million gallons per day, which was 9% of the country’s total.

Governor Newsom continues to support reductions in the supply of California’s special blend of fuel that is not manufactured in other states, while in-state demand continues to increase.

• Refinery owners do not control the market price of crude oil, natural gas, gasoline and diesel fuel.
• The price of a barrel of oil is set on the global market and subject to the fundamentals of supply and demand.
• Other factors in the price of gas include the competitive conditions in the marketplace; costs associated with fuel distribution; and local, state and federal taxes. 
• In California, drivers pay over $1 per gallon in state taxes, fees, and greenhouse gas emission reduction program costs. Other states average just $0.32 per gallon. 
• Most of the branded stations across the U.S. are owned and operated by businesspeople who independently decide what to charge for a gallon of gasoline.
• Today, CA fuel is about $2 MORE expensive per gallon than that in Mississippi.

• More people, fewer fuel producers, and anti-oil policies have contributed to fuel producers leaving California. When in-state oil production was at its peak, there were 45 refineries in the state.  Today: there are 16 open refineries and 29 closed refineries.

• The state has one-third of the refineries it had in 1982. Meanwhile, California’s population has grown by over 60%, leaving the state susceptible to higher prices when the special fuel supplied by the state’s refineries is insufficient to meet demand.

• California consumes 1.8 million barrels of oil per day, while only producing 463,000 barrels per day. Thus, the State relies on foreign crude oil imports to run much of the States’ economy.  That dependence, via maritime transportation, from foreign nations for the state’s crude oil energy demands, has increased imported crude oil from 5 percent in 1992 to more than 60 percent today of total consumption. Last year, California spent more than$26 billion for foreign oil.

• Newsom, by continually decreasing in-state oil production, continues to force California, the 4th largest economy in the world, to be the only state in contiguous America that imports most of its crude oil feedstock to refineries from foreign countries. 

• California’s growing dependency on other nations for crude oil is a serious national security risk for America since the State is home to 9 International airports, 41 Military airports, and 3 of the largest shipping ports in America.

• Years after the governor’s order, California is finally set to ban oil and gas fracking. The state’s most recent move was a decision by California’s Geologic Energy Management Division to deny new hydraulic fracturing permits on oil and gas wells. Then, in September 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation to ban new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of any occupied structure—a restriction so likely to kill the industry.

• Determined to save the world from climate change, California, with 0.5% of the world’s population, continues to shut down its oil and gas industry, to set an example for the 99.5% of the world’s 8 billion that do NOT live in California, the State remains focused on MANDATING the world’s strictest emissions controls on vehicles, including a regulation that phases out new sales of gasoline-powered cars by 2035 regardless of cost to its residents. 

The California assault on oil and gas has been unrelenting. In September 2023,California attorney general Rob Bontasued Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP for allegedly causing climate change-related damages and deceiving the public.

• Suing the ONLY supply chain source for the products and fuels DEMANDED by California’s 40 million residents is financial stupidity!

• The California Attorney General is oblivious to reality: Never bite the hand that feeds you, without a replacement to support the products demanded by our materialistic society.

All the above “accomplishments” by Governor Newsom have resulted in raising the cost of electricity, fuels, and products made from fossil fuels. Not surprisingly, the recent Public Policy Institute of America (PPIC) survey revealed that Gavin Newsom is by far the MOST UNPOPULAR Governor in America.

California’s climate warriors may succeed in their quest to eliminate fossil fuels in the state, but it will come at a grievous cost to their fellow residents, and it’s an example that the world cannot possibly emulate, especially for the 80% of humanity in Africa, Asia and Latin America who still live on lessthan $10 a day – and the billions who still have little to no access to electricity.

There perhaps was a momentary shrugging-off of slumber in Washington this week as they read the account of Sergei Lavrov’sdémarcheto the U.S. Ambassador in Moscow: Russia was telling the U.S. – “We are no longer at peace”!

Not just ‘no longer at peace’, Russia was holding the U.S.responsiblefor the ‘cluster strike’ on a Crimean beach on last Sunday’s Pentecost holiday, killing several (including children) and injuring many more. The U.S. thereby “became party” to the proxy war in Ukraine (it was an American-supplied ATACM; programmed by American specialists; and drawing on U.S. data), Russia’s statement read; “Retaliatory measures will certainly follow”.

Evidently, somewhere an amber light flashed hues of pink and red. The Pentagon grasped that something had happened – ‘No going around it; This could escalate badly’. The U.S. Defence Secretary (after a pause since March 2023)reached for the phoneto call his Russian counterpart: ‘The U.S. regretted civilian deaths; the Ukrainians had full targeting discretion’.

The Russian public however, is plain furious.

The diplomatic argot of ‘there now being a state of betweenness; not war and not peace’ is but the ‘half of it’.

The West has‘lost’ Russiamuch more profoundly than is understood.

President Putin – inhis statementto the Foreign Ministry Board in wake of the G7 sword-rattling – detailed just how we had arrived at this pivotal juncture (of inevitable escalation). Putin indicated that the gravity of the situation demanded a ‘last chance’ offer to the West, one that Putin emphatically said was to be “No temporary ceasefire for Kiev to prepare a new offensive; nor a freezing the conflict – but rather, needed to beabout the war’s final completion”.

It has been widely understood that the only credible way to end the Ukraine war would be a ‘peace’ agreement emerging through negotiation between Russia and the U.S.

This however is rooted in a familiar U.S.-centric vision – ‘Waiting on Washington …’.

Lavrov archly commented (in paraphrase) that if anyone imagines we are ‘waiting for Godot’, and ‘will run for it’, they are mistaken.

Moscow has something much more radical in mind – something that will shock the West.

Moscow (and China) are not simply waiting upon the whims of the West, but plan to invert completely the security architecture paradigm: To create an ‘Alt’ architecture for the ‘vast space’ of Eurasia, no less.

It is intended to exit the existing bloc zero-sum confrontation. A new confrontation is not envisaged; however the new architecture neverthelessisintended to force ‘external actors’ to curtail their hegemony across the continent.

In his Foreign Ministry address, Putin explicitly looked ahead to the collapse of the Euro-Atlantic security system and to a new architecture emerging: “The world will never be the same again”, he said.

What did he mean?

Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s principal Foreign Policy adviser (at the Primakov Readings Forum), clarified Putin’s ‘sparse’ allusion:

Ushakov reportedly said that Russia increasingly has come to the view there is not going to be any long-term re-shaping of the security system in Europe. And without any major re-shaping, there will be no ‘finalcompletion’ (Putin’s words) to the conflict in Ukraine.

Ushakov explained that this unified and indivisible security system in Eurasia must replace the Euro-Atlantic and Euro-centric models that are now receding into oblivion.

“This speech [of Putin at the Russian Foreign Ministry], I would say, sets the vector of further activities of our country at the international stage, including the building of a single and indivisible security system in Eurasia,”Ushakov said.

The dangers of excessive propaganda were apparent in an earlier episode where a major state found itself trapped by its own demonisation of its adversaries: South Africa’s security architecture for Angola and South-West Africa (now Namibia) too had fallen apart by 1980 – (I was there at the time). The South African Defence Forces still retained a residue of immense destructive capacity to the north of South Africa, but the use of that force was not yielding any political solution or amelioration. Rather, it was taking South Africa to oblivion (just as Ushakov described the Euro-Atlantic model today). Pretoria wanted change; It was ready (in principle) to do a deal with SWAPO, but the attempt to implement a ceasefire fell apart in early 1981.

The bigger problem was that the South African apartheid government had so succeeded with their propaganda and demonisation of SWAPO as being both ‘Marxist AND terrorist’ that their public recoiled at any deal, and it was to be another decade (and would take a geo-strategic revolution) before a settlement finally became possible.

Today, the U.S. and EU Security ‘Élite’ have been so ‘successful’ with their equally exaggerated anti-Russian propaganda that they too, are trapped by it. Even if they wanted to (which they don’t), a replacement security architecture may simply prove ‘unnegotiable’ for years to come.

So, as Lavrov has underlined, Eurasian countries have come to the realization that security on the continent must be built from within – free and far from American influence. In this conceptualisation, the principle of indivisibility of security – a quality not implemented in the Euro-Atlantic project – can and should become the key notion around which the Eurasian structure can be built, Lavrov specified.

Here, in this ‘indivisibility’, is to be found the real, and not the nominal, implementation of the provisions of the UN Charter, including the principle of sovereign equality.

Eurasian countries are pooling efforts together to jointly counter the U.S. claims on global hegemony and the West’s interference in other states’ affairs, Lavrov said at thePrimakov Readings Forumon Wednesday.

The U.S. and other Western countries “are trying to interfere in the affairs” of Eurasia; transferring NATO infrastructure to Asia; holding joint drills and creating new pacts. Lavrov predicted:

“This is a geopolitical struggle. This has always been; and will perhaps, last for long – and maybe we will not see an end to this process. Yet it is a fact that the course towards control from the ocean of everything that occurs everywhere – is now countered by the course towards uniting the efforts of Eurasian countries”.

The start of consultations on a new security structure does not yet indicate the creation of a military-political alliance similar to NATO;“Initially, it may well exist in the form of a forum or consultation mechanism of interested countries, not burdened with excessive organisational and institutional obligations”, writes Ivan Timofeev.

However, the “parameters” to this system,explainedMaria Zakharova,

“…will not only ensure long-lasting peace, but also avoid major geo-political upheavals due to the crisis of globalization, built according to Western patterns. It will create reliable military-political guarantees for the protection of both the Russian Federation and other countries of the macro-region from external threats, create a space free from conflicts and favourable for development – by eliminating the destabilizing influence of extra-regional players on Eurasian processes. In the future, this will mean curtailing the military presence of external powers in Eurasia”.

Honorary Chair of Russia’sCouncil for Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergei Karaganov, (in arecent interview) however, inserts his more sober analysis:

“Unfortunately, we are heading for a real world war, a full-blown war. The foundation of the old world system is bulging at the seams, and conflicts will break out. It is necessary to block the way leading to such a war … conflicts are already brewing and taking place in all areas”.

“The UN is a dying breed, saddled with the Western apparatus and therefore unreformable. Well, let it remain. But we need to build parallel structures … I think we should build parallel systems by expanding BRICS and the SCO, developing their interaction with ASEAN, the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, Latin American Mercosur, etc.”.

“In general, we are interested in establishing a multilateral nuclear deterrence system in the world. So, I am personally not worried by the emergence of new nuclear powers and the strengthening of old ones simply because reliance on people’s reason doesn’t work. There must be fear. There must be greater reliance on a “nuclear deterrence-fear, inspiring-sobering up””.

The nuclear policy aspect is a complex and contentious issue today in Russia. Some argue that an overly restrictive Russian nuclear doctrine can be dangerous, should it cause adversaries to become overly blasé; that is to say, that adversaries become unimpressed or indifferent to the deterrence effect, so as to dismiss its reality.

Others prefer a posture of very last resort. All agree however that there are many stages of escalation available to an Eurasian security architecture, other than nuclear.

Yet the capacity for a continent-wide nuclear ‘security lock’versusa nuclear-equipped NATO is evident: Russia, China, India, Pakistan – and now North Korea – are all nuclear weapons states, so a certain degree of deterrence potential is baked-in.

Other ‘steps of escalation’ no doubt will be at the centre of discussions at the Khazan BRICS summit this October. For a security architecture is not conceptually just ‘military’. The agenda embraces trade, financial and sanctions issues.

The simple logic of inverting the NATO military paradigm to yield an ‘Alt’ Eurasian security system would seem through force of logic alone, to argue that if the security paradigm is to be inverted, then the western financial and trading hegemony be inverted too.

De-dollarisation, of course, is already on the agenda, with tangible mechanisms likely to be unveiled in October. But if the West now feels free to sanction Eurasia at whim, the potential is also there for Eurasia reciprocally to sanction both the U.S. or Europe – or both.

Yes. We have ‘lost’ Russia (not forever). And we may lose much more. Is not President Putin’s purpose in visiting North Korea and Vietnam now clear in the context of the Eurasian security architecture project? They are part of it.

And to paraphrase CP Cavafy’s celebrated poem:

Why this sudden bewilderment, this confusion? (How serious people’s faces have become).

Because night has fallen, and the [Russians] haven’t come.

And some of our men just in from the border say

there are no [Russians] any longer…

“Now what’s going to happen to us without [the Russians]”?

“They were a kind of solution”.

• This article was published at Strategic Culture

Diplomats sometimes find themselves fading into obscurity within the annals of official statute books, their names relegated to the routine sections that note the passing of old envoys. Their positions, both before and after retirement, determine their prominence or neglect. Those who choose to critique government policies may find themselves sidelined, their contributions and legacies overlooked in the foreign office proceedings. This mix of recognition and disregard highlights the challenging path diplomats must tread throughout their careers, especially as they transition into the twilight of their professional lives.

India’s former Foreign Secretary, Muchkund Dubey, passed away on June 26 in New Delhi, leaving behind a legacy rich in diplomatic achievements. Despite his significant contributions to shaping the nation’s foreign policy, the response from the current political dispensation was largely muted, with minimal official tributes. This reflects political differences and a careful distancing from his crucial role in previous administrations.

Dubey was a distinguished diplomat, admired for his intellectual prowess and honesty. His career exemplified a deep commitment to professionalism, truth, and integrity, even in the face of complex international challenges. His incisive analyses and principled stance earned him widespread respect among diplomats and policymakers. Whether as High Commissioner to Bangladesh or India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Dubey’s decisions were consistently guided by ethical responsibility and a profound understanding of global affairs. His legacy is that of a statesman who engaged the complexities of diplomacy with both intellectual rigor and moral clarity.

Though I was closely observing and understanding his diplomatic interventions, I first interacted with Muchkund Dubey in 1998, during the post-Pokhran-II period. This interaction took place at an event celebrating the 50th anniversary of India’s foreign policy, organized by the Kottayam IR School at Mahatma Gandhi University. Dubey, then a distinguished professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University and former Foreign Secretary, graciously accepted a role on the advisory board for the conference, though he was unable to attend in person. We kept him informed of the conference’s progress and the resulting publications. That was surely a time when his insightful perspectives and commitment to Global South issues established him as a respected and influential figure.

Dubey’s career was marked by numerous distinguished roles, including his post-retirement role as President of the Council for Social Development and professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University. Born in 1933 in undivided Bihar, he joined the Indian Foreign Service in 1957, serving as High Commissioner to Bangladesh and India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations. He also made significant contributions at the UNDP and UNESCO. Academically, Dubey held a Master’s degree in economics from Patna University and studied at Oxford and New York universities. His interests spanned international economy, trade, security, disarmament, and development, especially in South Asia and India. A prolific author and editor, Dubey significantly impacted both academic and policy-making fields through his extensive writings.

Championing the Global South Interests

One of Muchkund Dubey’s works that particularly impressed me was his book, An Unequal Treaty: World Trading Order after GATT. Published shortly after India joined the WTO in 1995, this book deeply addressed the concerns of Global South countries regarding their future in the new world trade order. Dubey’s arguments powerfully reaffirmed the sentiments of these nations, emphasizing the need to contextualize India’s Global South policy in light of the ongoing neglect of developing countries’ interests in global economic transactions and negotiations.

Dubey highlighted that despite numerous rounds of multilateral trade negotiations under GATT, Global South countries continued to face significant challenges with industrialized nations. By the time the Uruguay Round began, more than half of these countries had become dependent on developed nations, the IMF, and the World Bank. Dubey asserted that developed countries exploited this vulnerability and disunity among developing nations, successfully breaking their unity. His insights pointed to the persistent inequalities in the global trading system and the urgent need for solidarity among developing nations.

Dubey’s foresight proved accurate as Global South countries, including India, struggled to address their challenges effectively. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Group of 77 lost their effectiveness as platforms for coordinated action. Dubey noted that during critical negotiations, these groups often succumbed to bilateral pressure and abandoned their common positions. A key reason was the inability of individual Global South nations to maintain solidarity during North-South negotiations, frequently prioritizing immediate national concerns over collective interests. This lack of cohesion was exacerbated by diverse national priorities, making it difficult to resist selective pressures from developed capitalist nations. Additionally, there was a lack of understanding about the long-term implications of the negotiations, leading some nations to abandon their Global South allies, ultimately undermining the future interests of all involved.

As the 1990s evolved, India made substantial adjustments to its foreign policy, revising core principles, reordering priorities, and modifying approaches and methods. The government faced a clear choice: embrace globalization in line with the economic reform package adopted in 1991. As India integrated its economy into the global capitalist system, it became more susceptible to the influence of US-dominated international financial institutions, leading to increased dependency. This shift was largely driven by the escalating external payments crisis, which necessitated the New Economic Policy (NEP).

Long before the Final GATT Treaty was signed in 1994, India had already made significant decisions under pressure from the IMF and the World Bank. These included welcoming foreign capital, adjusting tariffs on manufactured imports, liberalizing the financial services sector, and reducing subsidies. Amendments to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) and the Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP) facilitated globalization in India. Dubey noted that this was part of a broader trend, with over 60 developing countries reporting unilateral liberalization measures to GATT between 1986 and 1994, 24 joining GATT, and another 24 in the process of accession. India’s signing of the Final GATT Treaty was in alignment with the New Economic Policy (NEP) development philosophy.

Throughout the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations, which began in September 1986, Global South countries faced considerable pressure from advanced capitalist nations such as the US, the European Union, and Japan. The negotiations expanded to cover new areas like services, agriculture, domestic investment policies, and intellectual property rights, aiming to reduce the sovereign space of Global South states. Surprisingly, India showed little interest in developing a strong negotiating position, either independently or in collaboration with other Global South countries. Dubey noted that India did not publicly take steps to renegotiate issues of national interest or rally support from other developing nations to bolster its stance.

This marked a significant departure from India’s stance in the 1960s and 1970s. The economic and communication policy changes contradicted earlier initiatives aimed at establishing the New International Economic Order (NIEO) and the New International Information Order (NIIO). The GATT Final Treaty, which became part of the WTO, introduced new dispute settlement procedures biased in favour of advanced capitalist countries, allowing them to continue exercising bilateral and unilateral options despite strict obligations. The regimes under Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS), and services posed threats to the country’s self-reliance, affecting public policy formulation in trade, agriculture, investment, and social welfare. Dubey highlighted that these regimes would severely curtail the economic sovereignty of developing countries, disrupt their development priorities, and hinder their pursuit of self-reliant growth using their own resources.

It can be seen that successive Indian governments developed a ‘consensus’ on economic reforms and globalization, often overlooking broader issues of equality and social justice. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), despite initially opposing India’s WTO membership on the grounds of compromising national independence and sovereignty, vigorously pursued neoliberal economic reforms once in power. This included structural changes in the insurance, telecom, and power sectors, as well as further liberalization of the export-import regime, following recommendations from the IMF, World Bank, and WTO.

Years later, Dubey observed that since adopting full liberalization and globalization policies in the early 1990s, India had rapidly shifted to a corporate-led development strategy. Both the current and previous governments have adhered to this strategy, with the current administration particularly eager to transfer control of the economy to the private sector, while steadily withdrawing from public services like education and health.

Dubey also noted that the multilateral world order, based on the United Nations, had inherent flaws and accumulated distortions over time. India has made significant efforts to strengthen and rectify this system, leveraging its moral and economic influence through institutions like the Non-Aligned Movement, G-77, and BRICS. However, this world order now faces an existential threat due to actions taken by the US. Dubey also criticized the Modi government for not collaborating with like-minded countries to address this looming crisis. Despite participating in numerous summits, Prime Minister Modi has not substantively addressed this critical issue with world leaders. Dubey considered this complacency a significant failure of India’s foreign policy.

A few years back, Dubey wrote that since the BJP-led government under Narendra Modi assumed power in 2014, India experienced significant degradation on multiple fronts. Minority communities, particularly Muslims, feel increasingly insecure and excluded from mainstream national life. Organized gangs, many affiliated with the BJP and its mentor, the RSS, have been harassing, terrorizing, and even killing members of these communities. Incidents of Muslims being lynched in the name of cow protection, including cattle trade and beef consumption, have become alarmingly frequent. He noted that minorities faced humiliation, physical assaults, and even death for practicing their religious rituals in public, while the majority community faces no such restrictions. The government also pursued a deliberate policy to take control of academic and research institutions, cultural organizations, and think-tanks. The aim is to align their objectives and programs with the BJP/RSS ideology and serve their political interests, he said.

Dubey’s diplomatic was career was viewed differently by various people. While some tend to see him as very tough and rough, others disagreed. For example, former diplomat Ambassador K.P. Fabian told this author that he was Joint Secretary reporting to the late Muchkund Dubey when he was Secretary (East) and later Foreign Secretary. He was “a great boss to work with.” Fabian recollected that Dubey “guided, but did not want to micromanage.” According to Fabian, “Dubey was rather workaholic and I remember that when Foreign Minister I K Gujral, Additional Secretary I P Khosla came back from Iraq on a special flight. Foreign Secretary Dubey had already prepared a draft statement to be made by EAM to the Parliament the next day. Our flight was delayed and we reached by 8 pm or so. FS insisted on a meeting in MEA making us go straight from airport. Fabian called him “a Renaissance Man who took interest in all that mattered to the human race.” Former Foreign Secretary Harsh V. Shringla lauded Dubey’s exceptional contributions, highlighting his vast literary works, profound knowledge of various subjects, and remarkable personal qualities. Shringla remarked that Dubey’s absence will be felt deeply both in India and around the world. Former diplomat Ramu Damodaran wrote that Dubey was open to fresh ideas and impatient when they were restricted. At the United Nations in 1985, as Chair of the preparatory committee for the conference on disarmament and development, Dubey confidently stated that the committee “fully discharged its mandate” and even made additional vital recommendations. He also resisted laziness and custom in drafting. As a UN delegate in the 1960s, when faced with a proposal for “men and women to be equally entitled to maternity leave,” Dubey suggested the term “parental leave,” anticipating modern terminology by decades.

In addition to his expertise in foreign affairs, Mr. Dubey was a celebrated translator and literary critic. He translated Rabindranath Tagore’s Geetanjali into Hindi in 1953 and later translated the poems of Shamsur Rahman, a prominent poet from Bangladesh. It was with his significant scholarly contributions that Dubey was awarded a D.Litt by Calcutta University in 2015. In 2017, he also translated the poems of Sufi saint Lalan Shah Fakir from Bangladesh.

Dubey also took great interest in several domestic issues, notably education. One of his remarkable accomplishments was delivering the Common School System Commission report within the deadline set by the Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. This report was a milestone in improving the conditions of school education in Bihar. Dubey’s legacy thus endures as that of an insightful and passionate development thinker, leaving a lasting impact on the field.