Kanye West’s move to run for presidentship is a bit late but stranger things have happened in the US’ electoral politics
The end of the first week of July in a US presidential election year is a bit late in the process to announce a bid to become its President. But rapper Kanye West, famous in many parts of the world for being the husband of reality television star Kim Kardashian, thinks he can still win. In the US’ democratic duopoly, both political parties have by now firmed up their candidates — incumbent Donald Trump for the Republicans and former Vice President Joseph Biden for the Democrats. Even Trump’s insurgent campaign for presidency in 2016 began a year before the election. July is late even to mount a bid to get elected as a Senator or Member of Congress in the US. Maybe for a candidate with brand recognition value like Kanye, it might have been possible had one of the major political parties backed him. But that is unlikely as all resources, financial and logistical, have already been committed. May be Kanye stands a chance if a candidate drops out but that, too, is impossible.
In all likelihood, Kanye will contest as an independent — and that brings us to another crazy of “American Democracy” where the candidate with the fewer votes can actually win. Since every of America’s 50 States and other territories have their own set of rules regarding independents, it is impossible for independent candidates, even those running as spoilers, to get their names on the ballot. For a country that extols the virtues of democracy, “American Democracy” is pretty undemocratic and highly capitalistic. While strange things have happened in the US — after all nobody is in their right minds other than those tracking the nether regions of the Internet expected Trump to win in 2016 — it might be too much for Kanye even with the power of the Kardashian clan on Instagram. Of course, Kanye could be doing all this to promote his new album but then again, Trump began his campaign to get a new reality show on network television. Instead, we got a reality show from the West Wing.
It would be nice if the UK could give citizenship to three million Hong Kongers with BNO status. But it would also be quite surprising
We will grant BNOs five years’ limited leave to remain (in the United Kingdom), with the right to work or study,” British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab told the UK Parliament on July 1. “After five years, they will be able to apply for settled status. After a further twelve months, with settled status, they will be able to apply for citizenship.” The stunning thing about this promise is that it applies to all three million people in Hong Kong — almost half the population of the city — who have British National Overseas(BNO) status by virtue of having been born there before the former British colony was handed back to the People’s Republic of China in 1997. They don’t even need to have an actual BNO passport (as 3,00,000 of them do). All three million of them qualify: “All those with BNO status will be eligible, as will their family dependents who are ordinarily resident in Hong Kong. The Home Office will put in place a simple, streamlined application process. There will be no quota on numbers.”
This is an unprecedented commitment and it’s not even a legal requirement. Britain voluntarily gave asylum to 30,000 Ugandan Asians in 1972 when the dictator Idi Amin confiscated their property and expelled them from the country. But we’re talking about potentially a hundred times as many people in Hong Kong. It is a debt of honour, however, as Britain negotiated an agreement with China that Hong Kong would keep the rule of law, free speech and freedom of the Press for 50 years after the handover in 1997. China has broken that “one country, two systems” deal, and Hong Kongers can only expect a thinly-disguised Communist dictatorship from now on.
It’s right there in the new “security” laws imposed illegally last month by the regime’s rubber-stamp National People’s Congress in Beijing. New crimes include separatism, subversion, terrorism and “collusion with foreign forces”, the same vague catch-all charges that the Communist regime uses to suppress dissent in the People’s Republic. The maximum sentence for these “crimes” is ten years in prison. These laws will be enforced by China’s “security” (i.e. political) police, who will now operate in Hong Kong. The charges they bring may be tried in Hong Kong’s courts, but if there are “certain circumstances” or “special situations” the accused can be extradited to mainland courts, entirely under the regime’s thumb, where the conviction rate is well above 99 per cent. In other words, it’s over. The police now hoists a purple sign warning protesters that their chants could be criminal. Along major roads throughout the city, neon-coloured flags hailing a new era of stability and prosperity stand erect as soldiers. It’s not just freedom that’s over. As Christopher Francis Patten, Hong Kong’s last British Governor, wrote recently: “If China destroys the rule of law in Hong Kong, it will ruin the city’s chances of continuing to be a great international financial hub that mediates about two-thirds of the direct investment in and out of China.”
The decision has been taken and Hong Kong’s residents have two good reasons to leave: Their freedoms are gone and the economic future is grim. Many will decide to leave but where can they go? For the 3,00,000 Canadian citizens in Hong Kong, the 1,00,000 Australian citizens, the 1,00,000 British citizens and the 85,000 Americans, it’s easy. Most are ethnic Chinese from Hong Kong who understood that you could never trust the Communists and took out an insurance policy long ago by emigrating to another country and acquiring a citizenship.
Most of them even bought houses in the countries they adopted. But then they moved back to Hong Kong to be with the wider family and make better money. Many will go soon, because the Chinese regime may start forbidding people to leave (it doesn’t recognise dual citizenship). Others will gamble on staying for the time being, in the hope that if it gets very bad they will still be able to get out later. For the three million more who have BNO status, it’s a harder choice. They have much less money and no houses, no contacts, no jobs waiting for them in Britain. But they’re ambitious, they’re well-educated and a lot of them are young. It would be surprising if at least half a million of them didn’t take up the British offer. Just one little problem: The children of people with BNO status who were born after 1997 but are too old to qualify as dependents — the 18 to 23-year-olds — are not currently eligible for BNO status. That includes a majority of the young adults who were active in the protests and have most to fear. But the British Government says it is considering their case.
And one little doubt. It is still hard to believe that an ultra-nationalist British Government that won the Brexit referendum with a wave of anti-foreign rhetoric and a Home Office that still stubbornly maintains a “hostile environment” for immigrants, will really keep these promises. It would be nice if UK can keep its word to give citizenship to three million Hong Kongers with BNO status, but it would also be quite surprising.
(Writer: Gwynne Dyer; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Unless a comprehensive Nepal policy is enunciated and strong measures are taken, Pakistan and China will continue jihadi strikes and salami-slicing against India. Bangladesh could follow
In May 2020, Beijing intruded into Indian territory at some places across the long border and Kathmandu claimed areas of Uttarakhand where India is building a road to Lipulekh Pass on the Tibetan border to smoothen the journey for pilgrims to the Kailash Mansarovar. Amid rising tensions, Nepalese police firing killed an Indian citizen and injured two others at the border in Sitamarhi, Bihar, on June 12. On the night of June 15, Chinese forces brutally assaulted our troops at the Galwan Valley in Ladakh, killing an officer and 19 soldiers.
Nepal Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli fuelled nationalist hysteria and compelled all political parties in Parliament to pass a new political map showing Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh as Nepalese lands. Kathmandu claimed that in 1816, the East India Company fixed Kali River as its western boundary with India; hence land east of the river belongs to Nepal. The fact is that four kings — Tribhuvan, Mahendra, Birendra and Gyanendra — never made claims to these areas.
The developments stunned New Delhi and embarrassed Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has invested much energy in putting ties with Kathmandu on a more even footing. Despite bitterness over the border blockade caused by the Madhesi unrest in 2015, Modi ensured that the oil pipeline to Nepal is finished 15 months ahead of the schedule and made operational in September 2019.
Oli’s actions stem from the need to deflect pressure from his own party, with Pushp Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) and others demanding his resignation. The meeting of the 45-member standing committee of the Nepal Communist Party (NCP), where Oli reportedly enjoys support of only 15-members, was deferred to July 6. He may split the party and declare an emergency.
Oli and Prachanda failed to settle their disputes on July 3. In May 2018, while launching the NCP, the duo had agreed to share the prime ministership for 30-month tenures each but in November 2019, they agreed that Oli could continue for full-term. Prachanda now insists that Oli has violated the spirit of the November accord and should, therefore, uphold the original agreement and step down in his favour. Oli accused India of plotting his exit, a charge resented by leaders of his own party. Indeed, discord heightened after Oli persuaded President Bidhya Devi Bhandari to prorogue the Budget session of Parliament without taking the party into confidence.
Nepali communists have always been close to the Communist Party of India and Communist Party of India-Marxist. In 2005, the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government brokered a 12-point pact in Delhi to oust the Hindu monarchy and bring the communists to power. This forced the Nepali Congress to abandon its support for constitutional monarchy as a “symbol of unity.” Under the monarchy, Maoists were confined to the jungle and leaders of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) were in prison. Beijing persuaded the Maoists and CPN(UML) to form a united NCP. Nepal scholars lament that despite the massacre of the royal family, jihadi infiltration and Christian evangelism in the Himalayan nation, the Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP)-led Government has failed to rectify the UPA’s missteps. Nepal was made a secular republic without a referendum; it is strategically vital to India but Indian foreign policy seems oblivious of its value.
Interestingly, when the Oli Government was facing a collapse in May 2020, the Chinese Ambassador, Hou Yanqi, managed a truce, revealing Beijing’s power over Nepal’s ruling party. The Chinese Communist Party reportedly holds training programmes in Kathmandu for the NCP’s young cadres. Hundreds of NCP mayors, deputy mayors and province chiefs and Leftist journalists regularly visit China where they are trained to foment anti-India sentiments among the public. Currently, the President, Vice President, Speaker and Prime Minister are all communists and Left influence has permeated the police and judiciary. New Delhi must take cognisance of this situation.
It is pertinent that in November 2019, Nepal’s Survey Department revealed that Beijing had changed the course of 11 rivers and grabbed nearly 36 hectares of territory in Sankhuwasabha, Sindhupalchowk, Rasuwa and Humla districts. As protestors burnt effigies of Chinese President Xi Jinping, Oli downplayed China’s encroachment and incited anger against India.
When India’s Army Chief, Gen MM Naravane, said Kathmandu was acting at the behest of a third force (read China), some diplomats felt the statement was undiplomatic. The fact, however, is that Nepali politicians and members of civil society have long complained about the attitude of Indian diplomats in their country. Many appreciated Gen Naravane for highlighting China’s excessive influence in Kathmandu. Indeed, the General was soon vindicated when the Bill to change Nepal’s map was passed and quickly notified. Previously, India failed to act when Madhesi and other groups objected to the new Constitution in 2015; politicians who visited New Delhi could not get access to important personages in South Block. As long as this Constitution prevails, India will face problems from Nepal.
Nepal’s national emblem has also been changed to include Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh. Official letterheads, passports, et al are being updated to show these Uttarakhand areas as Nepali land. India must act tough and reject all correspondence bearing the new emblem. Foreign Secretary-level talks are meaningless as officials have no authority to negotiate what has been inserted into the Constitution.
Unless a comprehensive Nepal policy is enunciated and strong measures are taken, Pakistan and China will continue jihadi strikes and salami slicing against India. Bangladesh could follow. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed is possibly the sole leader with a soft corner for India, a legacy of 1971 and former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s exertions to ensure that Sheikh Mujibur Rehman was returned to Dhaka alive after the war. But Sheikh Hasina is a lonely figure, unable to protect even Muslim youth who oppose the rabid Islam preached by clerics from being hacked to death by fundamentalists. She has declared this is her last term in office. Yet, in all these years, the Foreign Ministry has failed to cultivate a second generation leadership in Bangladesh. A new Khaleda Zia could be looming on the horizon. Nepal has sustained our ancient civilisational ties through people-to-people contacts; we must help salvage its soul. The gains made by Prime Minister Modi during his early years in office are being whittled away. It is time to take stock.
(Writer: Sandhya Jain; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
After the June 15 drubbing, if Beijing wants to test the water further and is willing to go to war, New Delhi is prepared and determined not to budge
The third Corps Commander-level talks held on the Indian side at Chuhsul to resolve the border stand-off with China also ended without yielding any tangible result. Though nothing substantial was expected at the military-level talks, yet the hopes of the “de-escalation” process commencing were being entertained, but to no avail. In fact, rather than de-escalating, the forces of both the nations have begun “posturing.” Analysts feel this may result in a long-drawn haul till the winter.
India and China have a lot of history together and signed five agreements between 1993-2013 to maintain peace and tranquility on the borders. The aim was to avoid war between the two nations. No doubt, the agreements have succeeded in their purpose but at what cost? A close scrutiny would reveal that we bought peace at the cost of our national sovereignty. While China continued unabated with its strategy of “walk in at will” to alter status quo and continued its salami-slicing technique to strengthen its territorial claims and expansionist intent, we failed to respond adequately and overlooked it under the notion of a varying perception of the Line of Actual Control (LAC). In fact, the first cardinal mistake was done in accepting the unresolved border as a LAC. That, too, without exchange of any marked maps. It obviously suited the evil intentions of China but we failed to read between the lines.
The Chinese on the other hand were creeping forward to the areas they believed to be theirs with no regard to the Indian claims. The Group of Ministers in 2001 had suggested construction of roads in border areas for better connectivity and asserting our claims. Even though road-building work began soon after, the network was not improved significantly till 2014.
While China developed not only the road network but also the allied military infrastructure to abet its war fighting potential all along the LAC, including extension of railway lines, oil pipelines and airfields apart from housing and storage facilities, we totally neglected our borders with China. As a result, China succeeded in creating a huge asymmetry along the entire LAC giving it the advantage of controlling the LAC and ensuring rapid build-up in case of hostilities. China is now exploiting this advantage and preventing us from taking measures to minimise the asymmetry.
China may even be preparing to convert the LAC to the Line of Control (LoC) because of the terrain advantage it enjoys. Though Indian troops are better trained and acclimatised to fight at such altitudes, it would be a logistics nightmare to maintain the troops at those heights if the posturing continues beyond winter. The Indian Army is mentally and physically prepared for this but will the Chinese soldiers be able to withstand the harshness of weather is a question for the Chinese to ponder. Meanwhile, the Indian Army should induct more locals. Ladakhis are not only hardy but also know the terrain well, especially when covered with snow.
Ladakh Scouts should not be viewed merely as an extension of an infantry battalion but be employed as “Alpine” troops, using their advantage of being locals and trained in special skills like skiing, mountaineering and the ability to live off the land. As in the “home and hearth” concept, they should remain permanently deployed in areas close to their homes and not be subjected to usual transfers like infantry battalions.
Over the years, China also built new villages and habitation centres close to the LAC to settle the civil population there. However, it objected vehemently to any construction or development related activities in the villages situated on the LAC on our side. However, in 2016 and 2018, India continued with construction of a lift canal in Demchok and construction of the road north of the Pangong Tso right up to Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO).
While the Chinese continued to defy the provisions of the peace agreements at will, we did not object strongly or seek review of the agreements to prevent repeated Chinese incursions. We remained happy by adding provisions to avoid clashes but ignored the central issue of wilful salami-slicing of our territory, resulting in reduction of grazing grounds and pastures for our inhabitants in the border areas. Every time the Chinese withdrew, they had a demand, to which we submitted meekly. This emboldened the Chinese next time and continued till India established a new normal of challenging the Chinese at Galwan this time.
The Chinese have perfected the art of “grab first and negotiate” but before negotiating create a situation of hopelessness for the adversary so that it is left with no option but to submit to the Chinese terms. However, the Chinese leadership has failed to do it this time and is irked by India’s firmness and resolve.
The Chinese plan to “teach India a lesson” also met its Waterloo at the icy heights of Galwan on June 15 night when the Indian Army gave them a major drubbing. As a result the morale of Chinese soldiers is so low that they are being taught Unarmed Combat.
It is this loss of face, both domestically and globally, that is compelling China to delay the de-escalation. Any hurried withdrawal of forces will further sully the Chinese image. Gradual, delayed and un-noticed withdrawal suits the Chinese game plan. If China wants to test the water further and is willing to go to war, India is prepared and is determined not to budge.
In a hard-hitting article titled New twist in dispute with China. Never ignore India’s strategic interests, General VP Malik, former Chief of Army Staff, states, “It is becoming obvious that on India-China boundary discussions, India seems to have given up its claim to Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, Shaksgam and Aksai Chin; China has knocked off almost the whole of the Western sector boundary; and by reducing nearly 1,600 km from its definition of border with India and questioning Indian sovereignty over Jammu & Kashmir, it has added a new twist to the India-China boundary dispute.” He further says, “India, on the other hand, is perceived as a soft state. Our leaders and governments, more often than not, have lacked strategic thinking. There is a sense of self-righteousness and singular faith in words without looking for underlying falsehoods and incompetence.” The last line is truly prophetic. India somehow had kept quiet for several decades on the Aksai Chin and Shaksgam, which encouraged China to move up.
Now that India has constructed a road up to DBO and operationalised/constructed airfields in the region, China is annoyed. China is surprised as to how India is now demanding Aksai Chin as was clear in the Home Minister’s statement in the Parliament. India’s new posturing at political and diplomatic levels has rattled China, which, therefore, decided to “teach India a lesson” militarily. What further surprised China was India’s response to military aggressiveness. India matched China brick to brick and responded to its military posturing in equal measure.
The recent news of Pakistan moving two divisions worth forces opposite Northern Ladakh in Gilgit-Baltistan is yet another attempt by China to coerce the Indian leadership by posing a threat of a two-front war. The reported resurrection of Al Badr, a defunct terrorist outfit, is also part of the same ploy. But India is determined and prepared to meet the challenge.
China has to accept the blame for its current misadventure in Ladakh. Instead of doing that, it continues to blame the Indian Army and harp about the growing Indo-American bonhomie for the deterioration in Sino-Indian relations. In a recent article published in its mouthpiece Global Times, it says, “The US, in particular, is seducing India to counterbalance China and the concept of Indo-Pacific strategy is turning into a reality. For quite a number of Indian elite, they are more inclined to work with the West strategically. They believe that by joining the US camp to contain China, they are now a world power on equal footing.” It’s an attempt to warn India to stay away from the US without realising that India reserves the option of maintaining strategic autonomy. But if needed New Delhi would not hesitate to seek assistance, not necessarily military, from other friends as well. The Chinese arrogance is also evident in the same article. “No matter from history or reality, elements of India’s politics and society are fertile for growing anti-China sentiments. It is understandable that India views the 1962 Sino-Indian war as a historic humiliation. But it would be dangerous if New Delhi resents Beijing and launches anti-China waves from national education and strategic levels,” writes the Global Times.
India wants to resolve all disputes through peaceful bilateral negotiations but would resist every attempt to challenge its sovereignty. India would prefer China to honour various border agreements signed by it to maintain peace and tranquility and also revisit or modify them if needed. But if China wants war, let it be. India will not relent. The ball is entirely in China’s court.
(Writer: Anil Gupta; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
By touring frontline posts and calling out China’s expansionism, PM tries to cover up his early remarks, says India means business
For a man who crafts his moves in such a manner that they appear the only truth that obfuscates others, Prime Minister Narendra Modi did slip up on the narrative that he sought to build on the Chinese ingress in Ladakh. Worse, he completely denied that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had ever entered our territory. A costly error considering he made this claim at an all-party meeting even as contrary versions came from his own office, the MEA and satellite images. So he had to do something dramatic to wrest his credibility, something which had been emaciated badly by the Chinese with whom he stepped up bilateral engagements only to make the fatal flaw that somebody he likes to disown frequently did — Jawaharlal Nehru. Quitting the Chinese Twitter, Weibo, was hardly resonant. So he surprised everybody and definitely spooked the Chinese, too, by flying into Ladakh, visiting a forward position, encouraging frontier soldiers and significantly calling out Beijing’s expansionism. He abandoned the diplomacy of caution and underplaying, one that had so far left quite a bit of legroom for both India and China to negotiate in private, and came much closer to calling a spade a spade. It was also his most reactive gesture to domestic criticism, from opinion makers of all shades wondering whether our nationalism and militarism were good enough against Pakistan, itself a pawn in China’s game, while we were pusillanimous about the latter. And, of course, to silence Rahul Gandhi, who has consistently been attacked for the follies of his great grandfather in fostering Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai and who accused Modi of surrendering our territorial integrity to Chinese suzerainty. Internationally, too, he is indicating he is ready to make common cause with other nations against China. As the PM with the most number of visits to Beijing and summitry with Chinese President Xi Jinping, he has only helped China get a deeper access to our markets while fuelling its territorial ambitions and heightening its asymmetrical equation. One that has allowed China to scoff at our boycott of its goods as inconsequential. Modi certainly wouldn’t like to be remembered for Doklam and the Ladakh standoffs. No matter what the rhetoric on de-escalation, both episodes have shown that while the PLA retreats a few steps, it fortifies just beyond the lines or asks for territories in return. By choosing to visit Ladakh when the disengagement talks between India and China are still on, Modi has conveyed that he wouldn’t yield to territorial pressure or tradeoffs. And our soldiers would not back down from taking on the PLA if provoked. Modi’s big signal is that the “face-off vs trade-off” formula is out and no territory will be conceded to buy peace. Or that claimed positions in Aksai Chin and PoK will never be legitimised. Nor will India shift its positions or stop developing its border infrastructure. For some time now, the local Army commands have been insisting that cowering down had not given India any advantage and Modi seems to be coming round to the view that it is high time we stand up to the Chinese wherever we can. Particularly in Ladakh, where troop positions and mountain warfare strategies are in our favour. China had not bargained for an upgraded infrastructure on the Indian side and had hoped that its geo-strategic domination in the region could be achieved at a very low cost. But with Modi personally taking stock of frontline positions with the Army chief, he has sent a message that India is willing to bear the costs once and for all to restore status quo. That China wasn’t prepared for such an offensive position is clear from its quick reaction to the “expansionism” remark and dire warnings that India can never match its defence budget. But the PM has clearly gone past such warnings. And though we may not be able to boycott all things Chinese, given their intrinsic worth in supply chain management, cost competitiveness and compliance of international standards, the Government is certainly wiring out wherever it can. While the loss of trade volumes may not be a dent to China’s export basket, it would definitely be sore about not having a stake in India’s infrastructure projects or consumption market.
Modi’s assertive stand on the border also means that he has international endorsement of some sort and is clearly veering further to the West. The US, which has been hard-hit by the virus, won’t be giving up on China easily in an election year and is deploying strengths in the South China Sea to stare it down. Officially, it said its decision is influenced by the Indo-China tension along the LAC. By referencing India almost as its proxy, there seems to have been some confabulation on the subject. France has offered help too. The UK and Australia are offering citizenship to Hong Kong residents following a new Chinese law usurping their rights. Interestingly, even Myanmar has been calling out China for abetting rebels within its territory and seeking international help. Clearly, there must be some sort of consensus on encircling the dragon. Modi seems to have based his strategies on this post-pandemic understanding between nations. But will he be bolder to talk about Tibet and Xinjiang? Maybe India could begin by supporting resolutions on these. We have to come out of the cocoon syndrome and go for China’s Achilles heel.
With China facing serious backlash both domestically and internationally, it wants to divert its people’s attention to the India-China border
For the last two months, India and China have been involved in a military and diplomatic stand-off along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). The current skirmish is not isolated from the main politics of China. It is but an extension of the Communist Party of China’s (CPC) domestic policy. The developments at the border have come at a time when the CPC is facing international backlash over the outbreak of the pandemic. Back home, too, the Chinese are frustrated over the CPC’s role in covering up the spread of the Coronavirus in Wuhan city, which eventually led to the deaths of thousands of people. As per the database leaked from the National University of Defence Technology in Changsha city, China could have had 6,40,000 cases instead of the official 84,000. This revelation has further alienated the CPC from the Chinese people.
What, however, is worrying is that 70 years on, India’s Tibet dilemma remains. Before Tibet was invaded by China, there was no sign of well-made road along the India-Tibet border. However, trade routes for pack animals existed. From Srinagar, a route runs to Leh and thence through Southern Tibet to Shigatse and Lhasa. From Lhasa, a much-used route goes to Chamdo. In short, there was hardly any sign of a good road or any major bridge in Tibet. All of this changed drastically after the Chinese invasion of Tibet. China became India’s new neighbour and with this new development, the tranquility across the Himalayas was hijacked by an authoritarian party-State.
Ever since the invasion of Tibet, the development of strategic roads became a top priority for the CPC. It undertook massive infrastructure development projects for more than two decades. And by 1975, China had completed 91 highways totalling 15,800 km, with 300 permanent bridges in outer Tibet alone, effectively connecting 97 per cent of the region’s counties by roads. Then the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) started focussing on Tibet. Ever since, the number of exercises and overall military activities in the Lanzhou and Chengdu military regions have been noteworthy. In one of the early instances, in October 2011, the PLA was reported to have carried out two joint exercises in the Chengdu and Lanzhou military regions.
The Global Times reported on January 5, “In the new year exercises, the PLA Tibet Military Command has deployed helicopters, armoured vehicles, heavy artillery and anti-aircraft missiles across the region: From Lhasa, capital of Tibet, with an elevation of 3,700 metres to border defence frontlines with elevations of more than 4,000 meters.” It further noted, “China’s latest weapons, including the Type 15 tank and the new 155-millimetre vehicle-mounted howitzer, were deployed in Tibet as the PLA began the first round of exercises in 2020.” Because of its continuous infrastructure development, today, the PLA is in a position to carry out numerous military exercises even on the inhospitable terrains of Tibet.
One stone at a time: CPC’s territorial strategy for future claims and control: Early in 1995, after the Philippines Government discovered that octagonal bunker-type structures were being constructed on a previously unoccupied reef, the then Chinese Foreign Minister, Qian Qichen, had claimed that it was built by the authorities of Hainan for the convenience of Chinese fishermen around the Spratly Island. Following this incident, there was a series of diplomatic exchanges and visits by heads of both countries to satisfactorily resolve the issue. Despite numerous diplomatic engagements, China continued to upgrade its physical presence on the Mischief Reef. Later these structures became the base for the CPC laying sovereignty claim over the islands.
On November 26, 2016, satellite images released by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) showed a series of hexagonal structures now in place on each of the seven islets. They appear to be large anti-aircraft guns and close-in weapons systems (CIWS), AMTI said. In fact, this weapon system can also be used on land to protect the military base. By 2018, the reef had been turned into a militarised artificial island equipped with anti-ship cruise missiles.
As it is said, “Old habits die hard.” Despite pressurising India to stop the construction of roads in the Galwan Valley and Pangong Tso, China continues to develop an enhanced transport network and military infrastructure across Tibet’s regions bordering India. The Indian Government should not allow the installation of any temporary or permanent structures by the PLA on the disputed territory. Any physical structure, either temporary or permanent, built by the PLA should be either dismantled or a similar structure be installed in the area claimed by the CPC. Else, it may argue in the future that the structures are nothing more than shelters for the PLA soldiers lost in the Galwan Valley. And the construction of roads or any other permanent military installation near the disputed border may become a source of future claims and control by China.
Dear CPC, home is where your threat is: In the history of China, the Chinese population is a major factor for the dethronement of a number of dynasties. China was not only invaded many times by nomadic people from outside its borders but was also turned upside down many more times by its own citizens, mainly peasants. In all, there were 1,109 main military conflicts between the Chinese and the northern nomads from 215 BC to AD 1684 and as many as 225,887 recorded armed rebellions between 210 BC and AD 1910 within China. In 20th century China, there were two mass movements, mostly led by young students, scholars and literary figures. Later, people from all walks of life joined in. The two crucial movements were: The 1919 May 4 Movement and the Tiananmen Square protests. In both these movements, poor governance, rampant officials’ corruption, high unemployment rate were the main causes for the outburst.
Before the Tiananmen Square protests, by October 1988, the population of migrant labourers in Beijing had reached one million and was growing continuously. In Guangzhou, the capital of Guangdong Province, more than 2.5 million rural labourers flooded the city over a short period between February and March 1989. Not only this, thousands of university graduates failed to get jobs of their interests and the unemployment rate was high. Rising inflation added to the woes. All these developments sowed the seeds of mass protests. In modern times, too, despite the CPC having an iron-fist control on the Chinese people, between 1993 and 2008, there were a total of 614,100 protests across China.
This year, with the CPC attempting to cover up information pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese people realised the importance of freedom of expression and access to the free flow of information. It was the denial of these rights that led to the death of Li Wenliang and the spread of Coronavirus in China. This pandemic didn’t take a long time to spread and brought the global economy to its nadir.
China, being the source of the virus, has been the worst-hit economically. In late April, a report by Shandong-based Zhongtai Securities Brokerage Company in China concluded that the unemployment rate in China is at 20.5 per cent with some 70 million people out of work. While the official jobs data released by China’s national bureau of statistics on May 15 put the unemployment rate in April at six per cent.
Later, the report was retracted and Li Xunlei, the director of the research unit of Zhongtai Securities, was removed from his post. This shows the CPC’s hyper-sensitivity towards unemployment problems in China. The one thing that the CPC fears the most is the spectre of unemployment. During a conference on employment and entrepreneurship related to general colleges and universities graduates on May 13, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang demanded more emphasis be put on key groups by offering college and university graduates targetted job-seeking services. One of the main reasons behind China’s erratic behaviour in Asia is to divert the attention of aggrieved, frustrated and millions of jobless people.
Xi’s predecessor, Mao-Zedong, too, had declared a war on India on account of growing unpopularity in China because of his failure of the Great Leap Forward, which led to the death of around 45 million people. Bertil Linter, author of China’s India War, concluded that “the border dispute was only an excuse to launch the 1962 war.” To secure his power firmly and to divert the attention of the Chinese people, war was declared against India amid the Cuban crisis. In a bid to divert the attention of the Chinese people on account of joblessness, the CPC is behaving erratically with its neighbours. In other words, in the coming days, developments inside China will shape its foreign policy because the real threat for the ruling party lies within.
(Writer: Tenzin Tsultrim Wangdu; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Many short-term measures imposed now may have a long-term influence on both national and international governance and political ideology
Though the economic fallout of the pandemic is more vivid, its impact has political dimensions, too. Many short-term measures imposed now may have a long-term influence on both national and international governance and political ideology. The political impact, in the national context, seems to be arising out of four factors: Nature of response by countries; manner of response; deepening of societal fault lines and nature of the regimes vis-à-vis their effectiveness in controlling the virus.
It might impact the world order, too, due to the shifting of the balance of power and the ideological debate on global cooperation vs isolationism and liberalism vs authoritarianism.
Normally, the response to a disaster is 3R: Rescue, Relief and Rehabilitation. But in the case of the Corona, a fourth R has crept in and this is Regulation. The lockdown resulted in complete disruption of all movement, the economy and personal liberty. Across countries, not only the framework of regulations but the manner of imposition has a common pattern.
The executive, with or without the consent of the legislature and other stakeholders, gave itself absolute powers and responded by executive decrees. The differential impact of sudden economic disruption on different strata of society has exacerbated the strain across the existing societal fault lines of rich vs poor, urban vs rural, region vs region, local vs migrants, employer vs employees and so on.
The crisis has also fuelled debate on the effectiveness of authoritarian regimes vis-à-vis democracies as major democracies like the US, Germany and Italy faltered in their effort while authoritarian regimes of Singapore and Vietnam controlled the virus well. Now, let us see the likely impact. The first political impact is the centralisation of power. The ruling elite in Hungary, the Philippines, China, El Salvador and Uganda have used the crisis to accredit themselves with emergency powers, moving them further away from democracy. In India, the invoking of the National Disaster Management Act, too, resulted in centralisation of powers in the national executive.
The second is the abridgment of fundamental rights, expanded State surveillance and banishing of protests. In Hungary, Jordan, Chile, Thailand and so on, punishments were prescribed for spreading misinformation, which opens the possibility of muzzling any voice of dissent. Invasive surveillance systems in Israel, South Korea and Singapore, unthinkable earlier, are being hailed as effective measures for slowing infections.
Plus, the social strains caused by economic disruption may change political alignments and the landscape of political debate by creating more fractured societies. The spirit of federalism has also been impacted due to excessive centralisation of power.
Another impact of this outbreak may be reduction in the influence of the neo-liberal trend of decreasing role of the State, considering the strong, dominant and pivoting role played by the State to counter the virus. Given the experience of the current crisis, it will be difficult to argue that the private sector and philanthropy can be a substitute for a competent State during a national emergency.
While it may be argued that these are emergency measures and were needed to tackle an unprecedented situation with a firm hand, it cannot be predicted with certainty that all these measures will be done away with once the crisis is over. More so because this contagion is going to stay for some time. The longer it prevails, the more difficult it will be to dismantle emergency powers. Forget about authoritarian or tending to be authoritarian regimes, it may tempt even democratically-elected governments to continue the emergency measures in the same or modified form, to centralise powers and strengthen their hold on the polity, given the comfort it provides to the ruling elite. The most dangerous possibility is posed by the use of high-end technologies for surveillance, which opens up many possibilities for misuse during normal times, too.
The current crisis has also brought to the fore the debate over the future of a new world order. There may be two types of impacts on the world order. First may be the shift in balance of power and resultant shifting dominance over international organisations. The second might be a boost to the ideology of isolationism vis-à-vis global cooperation and authoritarianism vis-à-vis liberal democracy.
The global distribution of power seems to be shifting away from the US and Europe, which are faring badly in containing the disaster as compared to the East Asian countries which have fared well. The slogan of “America First” under the Trump presidency and its unwillingness to take the position of a global leader, before and during the pandemic, has led to the beginning of China’s dominance and aggression in the new world order. Beijing was already silently working towards domination in the economic order, global trade balance and supply chains, spreading hegemony over the ruling elite of developing countries, in Africa and Asia through debt-trap diplomacy and more recently in capturing the United Nations institutions. The outbreak has only accelerated this process.
At the ideological level, the disruption of global supply chains, the leading role of State actors and centralising tendencies may lead to a dominance of nationalist, isolationist and illiberal ideologies on the international arena. Globally, at the national level, we may see a rise in authoritarian, centralising tendencies and changing political landscape on account of fractured societies. At the international level, in the absence of a change in US policy and its hesitation in providing a rallying point for liberal democracies, it would be a free road for China to advance its ideology, technology and politico-economic dominance in the emerging world order.
Some scholars point to the lack of goodwill of China as a counter argument to its rising influence but we must remember that global politics is not a popularity contest. Hard politico-economic facts cannot be ignored. Second, the failure to ensure global cooperation in tackling the pandemic may lead to rising nationalist and isolationist tendencies and wear out the effectiveness of international organisations.
(Writer: Dipak Kumar Singh; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
He didn’t get loyalists berths in the Chouhan Cabinet on his own. BJP acted to stop Cong rebels from flocking back home
He may have been able to get 11 of his loyalists appointed as Ministers in the Shivraj Singh Chouhan Government in Madhya Pradesh and scream “Tiger zinda hai” — a layered reference to his past, him being the royal scion of a State which prides in the big cat, a dig at the Congress and a smart pick-up of a punchline much used by the Chief Minister himself to remind everybody, including Jyotiraditya Scindia himself, why an old horse still matters. But he may still not be happy. Scindia was unhappy in the Congress despite being part of the coterie around its crown prince, who had promised him a revamp in the party and a peerage that would weed out the deadwood, revive the cadres and corner the hawkish old guard who didn’t believe in new fangled ideas. Despite working hard for the victory of the party in his home State, he was overlooked as Chief Minister material as the prized post went to the tried and tested Kamal Nath. Instead he was given general secretaryship of Uttar Pradesh during the Lok Sabha polls, working for which cost him his own bastion as he was unable to justify his relevance among his constituents who had been loyal to him courtesy his family legacy. So he took some of them and joined the BJP, hitting the Congress where it hurt the most. His grandmother and aunts anyway had swung right a long, long time ago, so his move didn’t seem too far off his DNA. Scindia’s rebellion and crossover with 22 MLAs sounded the death knell of the Kamal Nath government and paved the way for BJP’s return to power. But the BJP didn’t reward him adequately for the same reasons as the Congress; there were too many local strongmen around who had enough reason to claim their pound of flesh and whose heft mattered more in heartland politics. The BJP, which has an ideological resonance across a State that is the crucible of Hindutva and where its long-range grassroots warrior Chouhan scripted a success story for 15 long years, did not humour Scindia’s royal lineage either. All he got was a Rajya Sabha membership and a Union Ministry but with no stakes in the State Government, something which he could apportion among his loyalists who jumped ship with him, he was left with no standing whatsoever. Apart from being a prize catch for the BJP simply because he was close to Rahul Gandhi, he has been of little functional use to the former. It was only when his supporters began streaming back to the Congress that the BJP realised it needed to humour Scindia and avoid the PR embarrassment of him resigning too. He may now have reason to hold his flock together but he will still be unhappy because his worth to both the Congress and the BJP will be circumscribed by his baggage. One which compelled former Chief Minister Kamal Nath to wonder if a toothless Scindia was a “paper” or a “circus” tiger.
Ideologically, too, Scindia may not find much of a rehabilitation in the BJP as one of his staunchest supporters and former Sewa Dal state president Satyndra Yadav claimed he was feeling suffocated and would soon return to the Congress. In fact, Kamal Nath may no longer be the Chief Minister but is using his organisational prowess to get the rebels back into his fold. He is even hyping up their return, saying how they were misfits in the BJP scheme of things, clearly exposing Scindia as a leader who couldn’t leverage their political worth. Nath even got back Balendu Shukla, who had joined the BJP in 2009 after differences with Scindia. Besides, for all his claims to legacy, he does not have absolute control over the crucial Gwalior-Chambal region, something that matters in assessing one’s political worth in MP. The absence of Scindia in BJP posters for bypolls was further confirmation of the drift theory. Besides, the state BJP, bred on cadre performance and commitment, will never refer to him as “Maharaj” or “Srimant,” an honour he was wrongfully allowed in the Congress by virtue of antiquated entitlements. Frankly, the BJP really did not need Scindia as badly as the latter needed the party. His net worth is unchanged. If he really does want to rescue his political career yet, then he must work the ground and show the numbers for it. If he really wanted to prove a point earlier, he should have floated an independent state outfit, something which wouldn’t have guaranteed him a Central role but would have kept his credibility intact on home ground and allowed him to be kingmaker at least. Defections are too easy, convenient and stereotypical. Scindia must realise that he is tied down in too many image traps.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
For the sake of better governance, police reforms are a must. But more than anything else, our forces need an attitudinal change. The police-public relationship needs an overhaul
Sir Robert Mark, a legendary police officer in the UK, who cleaned the Metropolitan police of corruption and who was subsequently knighted for his efforts, narrated an episode that stayed with him throughout his career as an officer. As part of his job, he was required to serve an internment order on an Italian waiter, who had lived in Manchester for over 30 years. Sir Robert Mark met the waiter and reported that he was harmless. The waiter was nonetheless deported as an “enemy alien.” Eventually, he died on a transport ship that was torpedoed by a U-boat. “That experience taught me there was neglect, carelessness and worse in the police system,” he wrote later. “It was a lesson I never forgot.”
Coming to the Indian police system, the one thing that I can say with some certainty is that there is no shortage of such experiences that can serve as a wakeup call for its officers. To Mark’s words, I would like to add that there is not only “neglect” and “carelessness” in the Indian police system but a heavy dose of “malice”, too. A recent horrific and brutal crime in Tamil Nadu brought this aspect to the fore. As per reports, on June 19, a trader, Jayaraj and his son, Bennix, who ran a mobile showroom, were at their shop when the Sattankulam police picked up the former and started assaulting him. When Bennix intervened, the police beat both of them mercilessly after taking them to the police station. The officers brutalised Bennix by allegedly inserting a baton into his anus. This triggered uncontrolled bleeding, which led to his death. His 60-year-old father was not spared either and was declared dead 10 hours later. The story is a brutal one but hardly unique in its brutality or display of violence by the police. A report published by the National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT) noted that a total of 1,731 people died in custody in 2019. This works out to roughly five people a day.
This is indeed a shocking number only if one is unfamiliar with the long, painful history of police brutality in India. But for anyone, who pays even little attention to the news, given the trend of police brutalities, hardly a day passes without a report of atrocity or impropriety. They may not always be as brutal as the Tamil Nadu incident but there are thousands of instances of police malice that are not even registered or those that do not show up on our radar until it culminates into a brutal killing and perversity. Take the example of an incident in Uttar Pradesh, where a station house officer (SHO) of Bhatni police station was suspended for masturbating in front of a woman who sought to register a complaint. Thankfully, the Uttar Pradesh police registered an FIR in this case.
However, there are innumerable such cases where perpetrators of horrific crimes are policemen themselves and no FIRs are registered. In terms of action, the numbers back up the view that the police do not take crimes committed by themselves seriously. According to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), 3,146 people died in police and judicial custody in 2017-18. There have hardly been any convictions for these deaths though. This isn’t surprising and even in the case of Bennix and Jayaraj, reports state that police officers have shown reluctance in coming forward to the station where the horrific incident occurred. This kind of behaviour must change.
So how do we bring about behavioural change? How do we stem the rot that seems to be entrenched among our officers? How do we fix the system, where powerful officials abuse their position and take the form of the very criminals they are supposed to apprehend?
The role of the judiciary in ensuring that justice is done and that investigation into custodial deaths is not compromised in such cases is crucial. One would also welcome anti-torture legislation. To this extent, the legislature can also contribute. However, in my humble opinion, the lack of a specific law is not the reason for an unabated rise in crime and criminals in an institution that I was proud to serve for many years. The Supreme Court’s string of judgments between 1986 and 2015 in DK Basu vs State of West Bengal, “created a valuable and seamless web of legal principles and techniques to reduce custodial death and torture,” as was explained by distinguished lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was amicus curiae in the matter.
The judgments inter alia detail procedural safeguards that must be followed, including the carrying of name tags by police officers, the preparation of an arrest memo which is to be attested by a family member or a respectable member of the locality among others. There are also directions to set up State Human Rights Commissions where there were none; to fill up vacancies that may already exist; and to set up human rights courts under the NHRC Act. I have merely tried to sum up the position and there are a lot more guidelines and directions in the judgments mentioned above. Therefore, the lack of a law on the subject is not the issue at hand. In fact, our immediate response to heinous crimes is often straight to an amendment of an old law or induction of a new one. This had happened with reactions calling for the death penalty in cases of rape as well. While I support the sternest action against rapists, we tend to ignore the fact that more than 90 per cent of the cases involving sexual abuse is perpetrated by the family members themselves or people known to the victim. By imposing strict penalties, rarely has the benefactor been the victim or society but the perpetrator himself since victims are more hesitant to report crimes with such strict penalties.
In the case of custodial deaths, too, our immediate reaction should be proper implementation of the current law rather than implementing a new one and then forgetting about it. We would make a heavy dent in arresting criminal behaviour if we: (i) Manage to ensure that FIRs are registered by the police against their own personnel. This is a Herculean task because getting an FIR registered against a criminal outside the police force is hard enough. (ii) Place CCTV cameras in police stations. (iii) Reward police personnel, like the DGP of Orissa who dismissed and initiated a Crime Branch inquiry against an inspector who was accused of raping a 13-year-old girl.
This accountability, however, is not limited to the police. Often, the reason why police officers are allowed to get away with murder is because custodial deaths are categorised as deaths due to suicide or due to natural causes by the doctors who conduct the autopsy. This is an abject failure on the part of the medical professionals who conduct the autopsy of victims and issue such reports, presumably under duress or for bribes. Such doctors allow these crimes to go unacknowledged and unregistered. The strictest possible action must be taken against such people who should be treated as accomplices to these crimes.
There is a certain segment in the force who will argue that the Indian police suffers because of the lack of attention. With all of these safeguards, catching criminals will be near impossible. This suggestion can only be scoffed at. On the first point of providing support to the police, I have written in the past as well, that the police suffers from a lack of funding, a lack of training, non-implementation of reforms etc. But here, too, police officers need to demand change from their political masters instead of cushy or powerful posts. Furthermore, political parties should be questioned why they have not implemented police reforms if indeed they are serious about tackling police violence and corruption.
On the second point of how the above-detailed safeguards prevent the police from doing their job, the fact is that these checks and balances only prevent actions that are violently criminal in nature. They are in place precisely so that actual criminals are apprehended on the basis of evidence and good police work, rather than due to a signed confession by a suspect beaten to a pulp. We must remember that in order to truly tackle the problem, we need to change the mindset and confront the criminals within and, therefore, harbour the same ambition that Sir Robert Mark had for the Metropolitan police, “To arrest more criminals than we employ.”
(Writer: Ajoy Kumar; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
After Nepal, Beijing is confabulating with Pakistan to open two fronts, by moving troops and pushing terrorists into Kashmir
Clearly, a bruised China, which had so far been used to India cowering before its military and economic might, hadn’t quite expected our Army to pay back the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in its own coin in Ladakh. And now that “Emperor” Xi Jinping, the new moniker emblematic of the Chinese President’s desire to universalise the “Chinese dream,” is affronted by India standing up to his grand design, he is unleashing his proxies and opening up new fronts. If Beijing got Nepal to wage a cartographic war with us, it has now deployed Pakistan, which has started moving 20,000 troops in the Gilgit-Baltistan area. This even as India and China are in negotiations to restore the status quo at Galwan Valley in Ladakh, which China is claiming to be its own and building up pressure by way of ingress, marking lands with its maps and reinforcing its presence. By bulldozing India and synchronising joint pressure points, it wants us to give up on our strategic gains and positions inimical to its interests in Aksai Chin, Xinjiang and, of course, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), part of which runs through Gilgit-Baltistan. And it is hoping for a mutual “back-off” deal. But perhaps it had not bargained for India’s acquired strengths by way of improved border infrastructure and connectivity, persistence and most importantly, its practised mountain warfare that could sustain an ambush. Such is its desperation and hurt ego that there are reports of the Chinese army holding talks with terror organisation Al-Badr to incite fresh violence in Kashmir. There have also been reports about a new terrorist threat to the iconic Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai. Given Pakistan’s state of the economy and its own battle with the pandemic, opening two fronts, one in Kashmir and another in the mainland, is not only over-ambitious but nonsensical. But if that is the diktat of its all-pervasive “master,” it will escalate threats for India, which, too, is writhing under the spiral of the pandemic. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), egged on by the Chinese, has reportedly stepped up infiltration in a bid to fire up the Line of Control (LoC) and contain India with a pincer attack. This is evident from the recent spate in terrorist killings in Kashmir and given the improved local intelligence, even flushouts in key terrorist strongholds. But post abrogation of Kashmir’s special status, it is not being able to galvanise local militancy and is quite frustrated on that front. So the Chinese strategy seems to be wearing us out on both the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and LoC while keeping up the pretence of negotiations. The Corps Commander-level dialogue on finalising modalities for the disengagement of troops from various standoff points in eastern Ladakh lasted 10 hours on Tuesday with little to show on the ground. China is hardly interested in withdrawing from its “new claim lines” in Galwan Valley, Pangong Tso and a number of other areas, which let it keep a hawk’s eye on our troop movements. With Galwan, it intends to wrest the advantage it had in northern Ladakh before India built a key highway and commanded the heights.
Diplomatically, too, with the US and France offering help to India in its border crisis, China is not sitting idle. It has got its vassal States like Nepal and Pakistan to turn world opinion against India for attempting to destabilise their respective nations. Nepal Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who is finding himself increasingly isolated within the ruling Nepal Communist Party, has blamed India for engineering a rebellion. And Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has now decided to extend his support to Oli, joining the chorus of India-bashing. Earlier Khan had blamed India for the Balochi attack in Karachi without so much as lining up credible evidence. Even China proposed a condemnatory statement in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) but was held back by other members who expressed reservations on uncalled for statements by Pakistan. The rebuff was sharp but such is China’s avarice for global domination that it forgets that without peace with India, the second largest Asian entity, it cannot convince the rest of Asia about its supremacy or “dreams.” Worse, it’s pushing India further towards the US in a new bipolar tussle. India has to scale up its diplomacy, use its favourable image in the West and even its friendly vibes with Japan and Australia. It must make a global case for its patience despite China’s ceaseless “wolf warrior” attacks. It must further use the US, which is anathema to China at the moment, to corner the latter and drive home the futility of its acquisitions at the border which might end up in a worldwide diplomatic censure. Not that it cares about goodwill but post-Wuhan, China will find it very difficult to justify its intentions or positions in world affairs. We need to use every multi-national forum, alliances and reinvigorate bilateral ties with the neighbourhood to make enough noise about the asymmetric relationship with China. Our studied silence for strategic peace has been clearly interpreted as weakness.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
While the world is reeling under the onslaught of the pandemic, China has intensified its belligerence and is indulging in aggression in the SCS and on the LAC
On June 15, India was elected unopposed as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for a two-year term starting from January 1, 2021. India secured a comfortable vote of 184 out of 192 at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), which was more than the two-third majority votes required (128 votes) to become a member. India was a candidate from the Asia-Pacific region for the non-permanent seat for the term 2021-22.
Last year, India’s candidature was unanimously endorsed by the 55-member Asia-Pacific group, including China and Pakistan. Historically, India had been the non-permanent member of the UNSC seven times starting 1950.
While the UN has completed 75 years of existence, its achievements have been mixed. Its five organs achieved certain milestones in healthcare, economy, social welfare, human rights and environmental issues, concerning mostly the developing nations. At the same time it saw many aspirations of the five UNSC permanent member countries i.e. UK, France, Russia, US and China getting realised.
There have been situations where these veto-powered nations did not respect the verdicts of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and made a mockery of the organisation for which they acted as superlative leaders. Therefore, the universal objective of justice and peace has been halfway realised.
The global order is still based upon hegemony and domination. Earlier the world was bipolar, whereby global politics was dominated by two superpowers, the former Soviet Union and the US. Now it is unipolar.
Even after the end of the Cold War, the smaller States are still struggling to align with the bigger powers in order to secure their sovereign status. Imperialism and expansionism still exist in many forms in the international arena like trade blocs, illegitimate access and exploitation of maritime resources, building power structures for future wars, manufacturing cheaper goods and dumping the same in developing countries despite those developing countries having a substantial workforce to manufacture the same commodities.
Such tactics and exploitative aspirations are often realised by bigger powers by funding various governments in order to incline their foreign policy towards themselves, creating animosities among the neighboring countries, funding and managing the facilities of other countries. In such a scenario, the concept of NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) seemed to be very relevant as it rose against the concept of power blocs by drawing on the principles agreed at the Bandung Conference initiated by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Indonesian President Sukarno with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and the Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito. The purpose of the organisation was very clear: Sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries in their “struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.”
Thus, from the very beginning our leaders foresaw the possible dangers of aligning with bigger powers. The current situation is very clear, where the world is demanding more multilateralism because the majority of the members of NAM had to look either left or right as the NAM could not rope itself tightly. India started looking towards the West as China attacked it in 1962, Indonesia started looking at the US to balance the influence from China or the Communist Bloc.
The best example which elucidates the above statement is the rise of an assertive China, which is not conflict- free. Several sovereign States in the vicinity or in the neighbourhood have been experiencing the pressures of its imperialistic, aggressive and belligerent attitude, especially in the South China Sea (SCS), as well as in other bordering States like Bhutan and India. China’s imperialistic attitude is reflected in the form of illegitimate access to their exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and building structures in the common waters.
However, things have changed. A smaller country is visibly more powerful now than what it was during the colonial period, but it is still reeling under the new colonialism carried out by the bigger power in name of development or aid.
The UN has expanded its member base from 50 to 193. In such a scenario, we need a stronger UN based upon the inclusivity and multilateralism which would emphasise upon human rights, democracy and other issues facing the world. Indonesia is a member of the UNSC and has a bigger say in terms of its geostrategic importance, population and economy.
In an IPI (International Peace Institute) virtual event held on April 24 with the President of the UNGA Tijjani Muhammad-Bande, the Chair and former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said that while the COVID-19 pandemic was the most “urgent” challenge the 193-nation body had ever faced, it could be best addressed through the global “interconnectedness” represented by the UN.
Rudd emphasised that “pandemics are the very essence of the reason why we have a multilateral system of global governments, and we know the reason for that is because epidemics and pandemics have no respect for international borders.” He further added, “This has tested not just our institutions of national government around the world, but it has truly tested our system of global governance.” He observed that the creation of the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 1948 and the International Health Regulations in 2005 had been “anchored” in the UN Charter. Thus, India at the west frontier and Indonesia at the east can play a very important role in seeking a multilateral world.
As the whole world is reeling under the onslaught of the pandemic, China has intensified its belligerence, overshadowing humanity by indulging in fierce aggression in the SCS as well as on the Line of Actual Control with India. This clearly demands revamping and strengthening of the UN in order to isolate such belligerence and create a peaceful global order.
(Writer: Gautam Jha; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month