Only the future knows if the revocation of Article 370 will be a success or failure. Although one must hope for good to come out of it.

In my last opinion piece in The Pioneer on August 3, I had concluded my piece with a plea for the real Narendra Modi to please stand up. Well, the Prime Minister answered my question quite definitively the very next day. Whatever may be his faults — undoubtedly there are many — self-confidence and the willingness to take risks are certainly not among them.

Undoubtedly, the high-stakes gamble in Jammu & Kashmir is one such. Whether the Prime Minister’s actions will turn out to be a grave miscalculation or a hugely successful one only time will tell. But whatever the future may hold, nobody can fault him for lacking in courage for his “bold” attempt to cut the “Gordian Knot” ie, the Kashmir dispute, which has strangled peace and progress in the sub-continent for over seven decades now ever since independence.

While the unholy pact between the National Conference (NC) and the Congress to suborn the 1987 local elections in the State resulted in insurgency, that continues to haunt us to this day, it was the British meddling — the true unfinished agenda of Partition — that has finally been laid to rest. The only dispute that now remains and requires early resolution — either bilaterally or through third party mediation — is for the return of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) to us.

Though in the interest of peace and goodwill in the region, we should be willing to forego our claims in exchange for recognition of the Line of Control (LoC) as the international boundary. Then, open borders in the not too distant future, something that many on both sides crave, could be a distinct possibility.

Every counter-insurgency practitioner knows well and understands that no insurgency can ever be successfully defeated through just military means. Insurgencies are political in nature and, thus, can only be resolved through political initiatives. Yet, over the past three decades that this insurgency has ebbed and flowed in Jammu & Kashmir, never has any Government expended the necessary political capital required to resolve the issue satisfactorily.

Thus, we have seen repeated cycles of violence that have adversely impacted developmental activities in the State. Moreover, given the law of diminishing returns, controlling violence and returning the State to relative calmness after each successive cycle of violence has got much more difficult and complex. Thus, undoubtedly, this initiative of the Prime Minister will be wholeheartedly welcomed by the security forces, especially the Army, as the goal of winning hearts and minds has a more substantive focus.

Whether the manner in which Article 370 has been employed to supersede the Presidential Order of 1954 with a new order of August 2019 — which allows for the supersession of Article 35A as well as the application of the entire Indian Constitution in the State — is unconstitutional or not is for the courts to decide. But clearly, as a temporary provision that it was stated to be, it had long outlived its utility. By no stretch of imagination did it protect the Kashmiri identity or culture, Kashmiriyat, as many suggest.

It had instead become a potent weapon in the hands of vested interests, which allowed them to exploit the State for personal ends. The truth that Kashmiriyat died the very day the Hindu minority in the Valley was targetted and forced to flee, most of who continue to languish in refugee camps, cannot be wished away.

In this context, therefore, those, who allege that this initiative of the Government was against our “secular” framework and aimed at further marginalising the Muslim minority, are being parochial in their outlook apart from being extremely hypocritical, given that they have done little or even shown any concern or compassion for those rendered homeless within their own country.

Pakistan’s reaction to all of this has been along expected lines. For its Army to respond in any other manner, given that its primacy within the country is directly linked to the situation in Jammu & Kashmir, is simply not viable. If this dispute were to be somehow resolved, the importance of the Pakistan Army would be greatly diminished, which would hurt not only the ego of many Generals but also their extensive business interests.

Yet, their room for manoeuvre is severely constrained, especially given Pakistan’s economic situation. Nevertheless, the threats of war emanating from there need to be taken seriously and bankruptcy has never stopped warmongers.

Obviously, given the meticulous manner in which this political initiative has been planned, one can be certain that the Government is well prepared to deal with any foolishness the Pakistan Army may decide to indulge in.

In a just-concluded conference organised by the Observer Research foundation (ORF) on ‘Tackling Insurgent Ideologies 2.0’, a speaker made a pertinent point that while a compromise on financial issues is a relatively easy possibility, given that both sides can negotiate to reach a middle ground, it is not so easy to do so when negotiations involve the politics of identity, which tend to be seen as a zero-sum game.

A seemingly intractable problem that has been around for seven decades is not going to just disappear and it will require much patience and understanding before the general population comes around and accepts the new reality. In the interim, the possibility of sporadic street violence cannot be ruled out.

But what probably scares Pakistan and even more local mainstream political and separatist leaders the most is the possibility that the general population in the Valley may not respond with violence to the new scheme of things. This could well be because they have, over a period o time, realised that the price

paid by successive generations for such opposition has been extremely high; while its fruits have only been enjoyed by those who have instigated the mobs.

Moreover, given the thorough preparations made by the Government, the large quantum of force deployed will also be a very big deterrent as well.

Finally, the optimistic view could be that the average Kashmiri is quite tired of the way things have gone in these last few decades and would be willing to give this game-changing initiative a try.

Whatever be the reason, if that were to happen, the credibility of the Pakistani Generals and local politicians alike would be badly hurt, which in turn would certainly decimate the business of insurgency in quick time.

One can only hope and pray that good sense will prevail and the course of events turns out just this way. That would not only be a victory for the country but also for the long suffering people of Jammu & Kashmir, who have been held hostage by circumstances for far too long and have been forced to pay a very high price in blood. We all deserve better.

(The writer, a military veteran, a consultant with the Observer Research Foundation and a Senior Visiting Fellow with The Peninsula Foundation, Chennai)

Writer: Deepak Sinha

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Returning to her former role, the Congress matriarch may now find difficulty in handling disputes within the party. 

The Congress is a grand old party indeed, so set in its ways that it sticks by them as it fears anything that’s new wave. In the process, India changed and slipped out of its hands. Still the altered reality that has clearly denounced all that the Congress has so far been known for — chief among them dynastic entitlement, minority politics, coterie culture and social welfarism — has failed to shake it up from inside. There was a chance this time to turn the poison of electoral irrelevance of a decade into a real cure with revival but the battered ship has left the harbour to sail in choppy waters again. Not that there weren’t winds of change within. Rahul Gandhi’s leadership may not have delivered results that matter but under his stewardship, a sizeable rank of Young Turks has emerged. Chastened by political wisdom and most importantly, seeking personal legacies with their voluntary performance than gifted family posts, some of them have not only made a difference on the ground but also challenged old world cliquism by showing that they, too, could chart a new course that could work despite the BJP juggernaut. Nobody understood this better than Rahul himself, who was at the receiving end of the worst kind of assaults on his lineage, and was, therefore, willing to break through by disowning party positions that came courtesy it and work like an ordinary partyman. And though there was no open revolt, the divide became more and more apparent, particularly when the young brigade approved the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. Many feel that the gradual divergence, besides Rahul’s aversion to continuing as chief or letting any family member continue at the helm, was to force the inevitable, a new order. One which even gathered some encouragement from practical minded old-timers like Amarinder Singh and Karan Singh. But the rigid old guard, which has built its political legitimacy by virtue of the party’s top positions, cosying up to the leadership and becoming its filter and sieve for the grassroots, scuttled the chances of Young Turks by bringing back Sonia Gandhi as the interim president. The only shift that the new leaders could effect was to get state units have a say in electoral committees of those headed for new Assemblies and a promise of organisational elections. While the Rahul camp sincerely threw names like Jyotiraditya Scindia for Congress presidentship, the old guard threw around decoys when they were actually working on his mother, convincing her the situation was desperate enough for herself to be more voluble.

Sonia Gandhi has always been a reluctant leader, even after Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. And though she has overseen two UPA governments as Congress chief, she is not in a position to make any dramatic difference now. But she has always given in to persuasion and interpretation of the old guard, some of whom have convinced her that the party would split or wither away if it didn’t have the family seal. And given the traumatic existence of the Gandhis’ political life or the burden of legacy that was thrust upon her, she surely doesn’t want to be seen as driving the party to extinction. Her loyalists know this and except senior leader AK Antony, who said Sonia should not be saddled with party affairs again because of her health, everybody else welcomed the status quo. Sonia Gandhi has been the face of compromise for much of her political life, holding all UPA constituents and allies together at one time with her personal intervention and gravitas. Not only that, she can bind the Opposition. This was one of the reasons why alliances with regional partners failed during the Rahul regime and no UPA 3 could emerge before the Lok Sabha election. Though that’s lost, as interim Congress president she can unite both the old and new in the party. Even Rahul wouldn’t have an objection to that. On the face of it, there has been a smooth transition of power within the cocoon of family warmth that the Congress is scared to part with. Politically, the reformist young lot, who are in their middling years now, may not like to fight senior hawks and lose again. They may retreat or chase new horizons rather than being “alone.” The Congress matriarch may not be able to assuage her son and his vision, saying they would have their time, but may be compelled to give something to loyalists given Assembly polls are around the corner. While the BJP may gleefully scream “I told you so”, Sonia’s biggest worry is the raging emotions despite her calm visage. Her party needs to buck up now.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

The revoking of Article 370 caused many leaders demanding the repeal of the revocation. However, Congress failed to make any such moves. The union of Modi-Shah duo enabled J&K to stand together. 

It appears as if every prominent leader of the Indian National Congress (INC) is running around like a headless chicken after the momentous decision taken by the Narendra Modi Government to abrogate Article 370 and fully integrate Jammu & Kashmir into the Indian Union.

That the INC is no longer “national” or “nationalist” is now obvious going by the utter confusion at top-level decision-making but the party was not always like this. It had robust and patriotic leaders in the past and there is sufficient evidence of this in our parliamentary records. Here is a sample of what tall leaders of the party, including K Hanumanthaiah, Member of the Constituent Assembly, former Chief Minister of Mysore and later Union Minister for Railways, had to say in the Lok Sabha on September 11, 1964, on abrogation of Article 370 and of their disillusionment with the pusillanimity of the Congress:

Hanumanthaiya (Congress): “Not merely Members of Parliament from Kashmir but irrespective of parties — from the extreme right to the extreme left of this House — we are all of one opinion that this Bill (abrogating Article 370) should be made into a law. To go against it or to say anything against this unanimous opinion of this House is to disown Constitutional responsibility in a convenient manner. Article 370…stands in the way of full integration.”

Hanumanthaiya also dealt with the constant fear in the Government about world opinion. Referring to the Western nations he said, “They are not our masters. It is not they, who have to dictate…It is the responsibility of this House to direct this…”. He said he would appeal to the Government “not to be nervous about world opinion or about opinions expressed by the UK, the US, Soviet Russia or any other power.” The Government, he said, should shake off “inferiority complex” that it had inherited from the British days and stop worrying about the response of foreign powers.

He said, “Here is a case where we could show equal determination and courage and solve the problem once and for all.” He told his Government to stop being so modest and realise that India was stronger and more influential than most countries in the world…”.

Considering how Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah executed the plan to abrogate Article 370 — with quiet determination and the virtual endorsement of it by many nations, thanks to Modi’s sustained, calibrated diplomatic contacts with global leaders over the last five years — it appears as if they were following the advice given by Hanumanthaiya to his own party 55 years ago.

In fact, some parts of Hanumanthaiya’s speech sound like he was delivering them on August 5, 2019. He said, “This is the unanimous opinion of this House (to abrogate Article 370) and it is applauded by the whole country. Therefore, I want the Government to take a determined stand…”

In conclusion, he thanked Prakash Vir Shastri for bringing the private Bill for repeal of Article 370, which had won the admiration of members across the political divide.

Many other Congress stalwarts forcefully demanded repeal of Article 370 during this debate.

Bhagwat Jha Azad (Congress): The Government must fearlessly declare its policy on Kashmir. From Kashmir and across the Gangetic plains and the Narmada to Kanyakumari, people want to see full integration. No Government or party can go against the wishes of the people.

Ram Sahay Pandey (Congress): He blamed Jawaharlal Nehru for rushing to the United Nations to complain about infiltration of Pakistani troops into Kashmir after it acceded to India. He said by seeking UN’s intervention and accepting its ceasefire order, Nehru had squandered away a fine opportunity to recapture the territories, which were in illegal possession of Pakistan. Gen Thimayya, who was handling the military operations, had pleaded with the Government for just two more days to recapture these territories but Nehru’s move and the ceasefire wrecked the Indian Army’s plans. 

Gopal Dutta Mengi (Congress): I support this Bill. All over India, people want Jammu & Kashmir to be fully integrated with the country. Constitute a committee of legal experts to extend the Union Government’s power to the State.

Inder J Malhotra (Congress): I…agree that Article 370 be omitted. The people of the State have no special liking for Article 370…and we shall be very happy as soon as this is omitted. I request the Home Minister that this Bill should not be opposed.

These sentiments were echoed by MPs across parties, including MV Kamath (Praja Socialist Party) and Ram Manohar Lohia (Socialist Party).

But the clincher came from DC Sharma, an Independent MP. He said, “Our Article 370 has disfigured our Constitution. This Article is nothing more than a Constitutional anachronism. I say that for the good name of India, for the Constitutional propriety of India, for the legal correctness of this country, this Article should be scrapped forthwith without any hesitation, without any doubt…this Article refers to those conditions, which no longer exist and which are not operative now. Therefore, this Constitutional impropriety, which is embedded in…370, must go.”

When we reflect over the advice Sharma gave to the Congress Government way back in 1964, which was not acted upon, the clarity of thinking in the present Government on such a tangled issue and the precision with which Prime Minister Modi and Shah have acted at this juncture, we realise the yawning gap between the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on critical issues pertaining to national integrity and national security. Here is another example.

DC Sharma (Ind):  Wisdom consists in settling unsettled things. The act of statesmanship is an act of boldness, firmness and decisiveness. But I do not know what has happened to my country that instead of settling unsettled things, we have unsettled settled things.

Finally, the clincher: “Article 370…is not a wall…it is a big mountain, which stands between India and Jammu & Kashmir. I feel this mountain should be blasted with dynamite, with the dynamite of goodwill, firmness and decision. That way lies the salvation of India and that way lies the good and welfare of the people of Jammu & Kashmir.”

Thanks to Modi, India no longer suffers from an “inferiority complex” that Hanumanthaiya lamented about. Also, Modi and Shah have acted with “boldness”, “firmness” and “decisiveness” — the qualities that MPs wanted the Congress Government to exhibit in 1964, “to settle unsettled things” and to blast the mountain called Article 370 “with the dynamite of goodwill, firmness and decision!”

(The writer is an author specialising in democracy studies. Views expressed are personal)

Writer: A Surya Prakash

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Post article 370 revocation, the government aims at working toward managing conflict and peace in Kashmir.

There’s something inherently reassuring about the return of normalcy in the daily rhythms of life, people moving about in the streets, shopping for rations, visiting places of worship, children going to schools and the elderly taking their walks. Life, as it happens around us in its mundane beats, gives a strange sense of continuity and status quo. The Valley, which was traumatised into silence after heavy security deployment, the abrogation of Article 370 and its declaration as Union Territory, came out on the streets despite the overturning of what had so far underpinned its political existence. At least, people attempted to resume their social life as they knew it with the relaxation of restrictions, albeit under strict vigilance. Some of them even managed to speak to the Press despite the presence of security personnel, even sharing their repressed views and fears. Others lamented the lockdown had thrown life out of gear. Yet others went about shopping for Bakr-Id, hoping their sincere prayers would be heard and bloodshed would stop in the Valley. This is an uneasy truce, something they have lived with for years, but the inevitability of a changed status is new to them. And they do not quite know how to react. This is where Naya Bharat’s Kashmir doctrine will be put to test, whether the healing touch of socio-economics will win over the people’s hearts or not, whether the muscularity of a bold move will be complemented by an empathetic understanding of people’s needs, where majoritarians understand that yielding space and listening may deliver greater returns than expected and that a tectonic policy shift also entails a mindset change.

Of course, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s outreach does talk about issues that matter to the ordinary Kashmiri — boosting growth, powering MSMEs, developing a tourism hub, opening institutions of excellence, marketing Kashmir’s heritage crafts, creating jobs and so on. Now translating them on the ground must be done judiciously. While Jammu might feel that it has been denied resources because of the special status to Kashmir for too long, it shouldn’t be seen as being rewarded so much that Kashmir feels the integration was just a political punishment. As a State, which was undoubtedly under-served economically and infrastructure wise, it still had been able to maintain some healthy growth indices. Because, though buying land as promised may seem like a whole new world, the fact is the 99-year lease model has worked for setting up existing businesses. While the nature of industries may be limited given the region’s Himalayan terrain and climate concerns, it can become a major pharmaceutical, medical and research hub with more knowledge-based units. The educated Kashmiri youth could become a national asset as they have proved their excellence, particularly in scientific disciplines, in the rest of India and abroad. Harnessing them properly and absorbing them in jobs could undoubtedly give us a talent pool but it’s a tough act considering there is joblessness in the rest of the country. It is difficult to demonstrate short-term gains in Kashmir where reclaiming peace will undoubtedly be a long journey. And without that stability, investment will just not come in. For starters, the re-organisation has pushed the civil society further away from us. And tainting politically-elected leaders as the nation’s disruptors and arresting them have distanced any hope of a return to consultative and consensual dialogue. They need to be coopted, not distanced, considering they have always chosen to side with democracy. Even the educated elite have through generations invested their faith in the idea of India than separatism, and so the Government must take care to ensure that trust is not misplaced. For the sense of betrayal could result in unimagined hitbacks. This requires a velvet glove approach considering the abolition of statehood has also meant a denial of their identity as they knew it. The mass protests by ethnic Muslims from Kargil are warning bells that bifurcation could trigger demands for further division and autonomy, resulting in unrest. The Government needs to have its ear stuck to the ground to anticipate implications and have a redressal mechanism in place. The panchayat model of devolution of power should now be systematically built up to local governance structures. Unrealistic imposition can never transplant realistic grace.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

India on a hot tin roof as both US and China lay terms for Huawei’s entry into 5G trials

It’s not the best time for diplomacy with China following the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir and the declaration of Ladakh as a Union Territory. It is the latter that has riled our eastern neighbour as it immediately changes the dynamic on Aksai Chin. China has so far argued that its claim there is contingent on the final resolution of Kashmir. Now that it is part of the UT of Ladakh and cannot figure as an adjunct of the old State, China is refusing to accept it and upping the ante. However, if observers are to be believed, it is show-boating its anger by dilly dallying on visas for Mansarovar yatris while working on Premier Xi Jinping’s informal visit to India. It is also staying away from making sweeping statements on the abrogation of Article 370, asking both India and Pakistan to exercise restraint. Trade is its bigger concern. So its threat to block Indian firms operating on its soil, if we stop Huawei Technologies from doing business here and participating in 5G trials under US pressure, is serious.

India is in a bit of a cleft stick here as Huawei is the pivot of a geo-political slugfest between  China and the US. The Donald Trump administration put the company on a blacklist in May, citing national security concerns. It has asked its allies not to use Huawei equipment, which it says China could exploit for spying. Given Trump’s transactional nature of dealing and knowing that India needs his support in the background of tectonic administrative changes in Modi 2.0, we are in quite a pickle about accommodating Chinese interests without upsetting the US and risking trade-protectionist hitbacks there too. And now that Chinese officials have threatened “reverse sanctions,” India must frame a reasonable response. Besides, Huawei has already operated in India before, so denying it fair trial now would be inimical. A potential conflict over Huawei can end up inflaming emotions and jeopardising the long-standing territorial status quo. At the same time, India desperately needs to address a $53 billion trade deficit during Xi’s visit and can ill-afford trust issues at this point. A high-level group of officials, which has been looking into whether to open the 5G trials, has so far found no evidence to suggest Huawei has used “back-door” programmes or malware to collect data in its current operations here. On the face of it, one can’t reject Huawei simply because it is Chinese. After all, it has 20 per cent  patents, 50 per cent market share and is cost-effective. But what the government can do indeed is to get wireless carriers who will be rolling out 5G services to use India-made software. And then  drive equipment supplied by gear makers. We cannot overlook security concerns either but considering Huawei entry is conditional for Chinese looking the other way in matters diplomatic, we have to step our way around it.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

Young Turks are impatient and if the CWC president emerges from the old guard, they could take drastic steps

Today could be a transformative day for the Congress as it would not only choose a new party president but decide whether it would go down the road to perdition or revival, stifle itself with formulaic tradition or break out of boxes, part with the old and stake everything on the new, and simply put,  matter anymore in news headlines. Of course, murmurs are of the predictable kind, that the leadership vacuum created by the exit of Rahul Gandhi will be filled by a loyalist and a retainer of the old order, an endorsement that guarantees the centrality of the party’s first family without owning responsibility for the post. Even Gandhi’s good intentions, to force a rethink without dynasty and the baggage of history, will then come into question. It would seem like he, too, played along with the tested plot of foisting a lesser leader and seeking a distress vote to resume dynastic control. Clearly, that will be ruinous given the current context where the party is clearly split down the middle over key issues, the latest being the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir. The younger lot of leaders, some of whom are believed to be of Rahul Gandhi’s camp, like Jyotiraditya Scindia, Deepender Hooda and Milind Deora, are clearly looking for a changed axis in a Modi-fied and Naya India and want their voices heard as new Congressmen. So all of them publicly endorsed the revocation of Article 370 contrary to the stance of senior Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad in the Rajya Sabha. The less said about the forked tongue approach in the Lok Sabha the better with CLP leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury going to the other extreme of classifying Kashmir as not an “internal” matter. This forced the old guard to pass a united resolution emphasising the whole of Kashmir as an integral part of India and just criticising the NDA government’s lack of a democratic and consultative political process behind the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir. Hooda and Deora are facing Assembly elections in their States and do not want to go against the national sentiment while seeking votes.  Younger leaders like Sachin Pilot are also living down their dynastic entitlement and working towards creating their personal legacies with practical logic. With all of them now 40ish and middling, they want to take a last shot at credibility than perish away into extinction. This young lot is also not averse to organisational elections to build inner-party democracy first before espousing it in Parliament or blaming other parties for running roughshod over it. Elections, they feel, would infuse new energy and get new faces in on the basis of political acumen and deliverables. Particularly Jyotiraditya Scindia, the co-general secretary of Uttar Pradesh with Priyanka Gandhi and believed to be an inner circle member, has put pressure on the party by publicising his support for the Government move on Kashmir and sparking speculation whether the disenchanted Congress brigade had parked themselves in the shopping cart.

Of course, senior leaders are still prevailing on Congress matriarch Sonia Gandhi, warding off elections for fear of being sidelined. After all, their undisputed runs in the party have meant that they have carved their own fiefdoms too and legitimised their continuity by virtue of maintaining these turfs and votebanks. Truth be told, most senior leaders in the CWC have not fought elections in a long, long time and are out of depth with ground reality. For example, one of the names for CWC president, Mukul Wasnik, last won an election in 2009. Were they to contest now, they would lose their deposits. So they don’t want to let go of their status quo in the Congress, hoping their posts would still lengthen their political careers. What the Gandhis need to understand is that egoistic dramas have run their course and it is time to either hand over charge fully or rescue it upfront. The Congress leadership, which is either calculatedly or helplessly driving the party to disaster, better value its political relevance over selfish interests. Because when the former is gone, even the latter won’t be of any consequence. If all this is part of an elaborate attempt to create an irretrievable mess where the Gandhis would look like supreme saviours, then one could also look at a consensus candidate who is accepted in their presence. And that would be an anti-climax.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

Freezing economic ties won’t have much consequence but the cessation of diplomatic ties is not good for both nations

There is no doubt that after the Balakot strikes, which showed how Pakistan’s jihadi adventurism could be curbed while staying well under the nuclear threshold, and now the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir, which removes Kashmir as a pre-condition for diplomatic engagement, our western neighbour has to have a newscript. Till then, it has to keep up the noise and bluster of aggression, hemmed in as it is by international pressure advising restraint against escalation and the US making its strategic relevance conditional upon helping it swing the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is also true that while both Balakot and the revocation of Article 370 may have seemingly shocked Pakistan, it was implicitly prepared for the boldness of Modi 2.0, its Prime Minister Imran Khan grudgingly admitting that at least he could get Kashmir moving. And now that Modi has indeed moved the cheese in Kashmir, Pakistan has no option but to wipe off the spilt milk. Since there cannot be naked aggression, it has done the next best thing — squeezing diplomatic ties with India, recalling its envoy and sending back ours, shutting down airspace and Samjhauta Express and suspending trade.

And contrary to perception, Pakistan isn’t imploding. Yes, its economy is in a bad shape and to that end it has taken steps, no matter how cosmetic, to crack down on terror factories and convince the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which blacklists IMF and World Bank loans and grants to terror-funding States, that it is making progress. It may have lost its diplomatic edge but not been blunted completely as it has negotiating power with the Taliban. So it would be wrong to assume that it would come around to India’s terms or change tack on Jammu and Kashmir. Yes, India’s latest moves have clearly removed the possibility of talks as a continuing weapon of stalling under the garb of good intention. It has also reclassified the Kashmir issue as not one of aspiration but a creation of Pakistan-exported terror. Yet, robbed of its favourite pitches, Pakistan did counter Balakot robustly, shooting down our aircraft, denying its own F 16 loss and through an aerial dogfight at least showed that it was capable of reciprocal hitback, no matter what the diplomatic consequence. Similarly, even though it knows that raising the UNSC resolution bogey is fruitless, considering it has violated it with its own intrusions, it will make big announcements to take care of domestic imperatives. It is using the same logic to internationalise Kashmir, using its changed status as the raison-d-etre of renewed neighbourly hostilities, challenging India’s “internalisation” with “externalisation” of alarmist impacts.

Truth be told, the cessation of bilateral trade ties will hit it more as India has been downgrading volumes consistently, particularly after Balakot, considering trade was being used as a conduit for funding terror operations inside Kashmir. Our export bouquet to Pakistan is really limited considering it has never given us “most favoured nation” status though we had done so in the past. Most of what we sell to Pakistan are agri-products, which can easily be diverted to markets in Southeast Asia. Cross-border volumes shrank as India imposed 200 per cent customs duty on imports after Pulwama. While India’s exports to Pakistan stood at $2 billion, imports were about $500 million per year. Imports from Pakistan declined by 92 per cent to $2.84 million in March this year compared to $34.61 million in March 2018, according to commerce ministry data. Mutual trade makes up for really minuscule proportions for both in world markets. Of course, in a healthy scenario, both countries could have a significant volume of transformative trade in the region, some estimating a $37 billion potential, but that in any case has never been pursued. So there isn’t much to rue either. But yes, a diplomatic freeze doesn’t work any which way. A stalemate does give Pakistan time to recalibrate and reconfigure a new “bleeding cuts” policy. Meanwhile, the Government must take care of engaging with the mature civil society, as also legitimately elected political leaders of the Valley, who have so far invested themselves in our democratic processes, and not leave them out in the cold. Pakistan is precisely looking for this alienated space to occupy and justify its intervention. Given the brutality of the lockdown, with news trickling in of food shortages and pellet gun attacks, the Government shouldn’t compound the local’s sense of being let down. A flashpoint could then become a volcano.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

The RBI has cut interest rates to the lowest levels in nine years but can that jumpstart the Indian economy?

The  35 odd-basis point cut in inter-bank interest rates by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) was seen as an indication that a quarter per cent cut was too little and a half per cent cut may be a bit too much. Whatever it was, it is seemingly unlikely that this will be the booster shot the Indian economy needs because banks are still hesitant to lend money to customers and even if they do, few are passing on the benefits of lower rates to customers. Almost all our banks, particularly public sector ones, are still suffering from the profligacy with which they forwarded loans a decade ago. So when the Chairman of India’s largest bank, the State Bank of India, says that he looks to the heavens to pray when speaking about top insolvent accounts, it becomes evident that even the reforms on the insolvency code haven’t really helped matters. And now the dramatic collapse in non-banking financial companies has only made the situation worse. But is it just about a switch, as some are commenting, that could turn 18 months of gloom overnight? Is India just in a vicious cycle of negativity that is making consumers and companies hold on to the purse strings tight? Could an injection of positivity be the change that India needs, one that will make banks lend again and consumers buy again? But where will that injection of positivity come from is the question. Quite clearly, it is not going to be from rate cuts, unless thanks to the reduction of interest rates, it becomes apparent that the best way to deploy one’s financial assets is to spend because the money will not earn much interest in the bank. May be the positivity that India needs will be a good monsoon, which will lead to a positive festive season come September with Onam kicking off the upbeat sentiment. Indeed, the Onam floods of 2018 in Kerala were the ignition source for the dramatic slowdown in sales for the Indian automotive industry.

The events surrounding Kashmir notwithstanding, the government really needs to ramp up its efforts on the economy. Because not only are behemoths dramatically scaling back new hires, the class of 2019 is finding it impossible to get jobs as companies have begun layoffs. This, and not the reactions in  Kashmir, should be keeping Narendra Modi up at night. The cycle of negativity has to be broken and a rate slash frankly does not cut the mustard.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

The Government’s launch of the KUSUM programme to promote solar power bodes well for farmers, DISCOMs and the environment. But there are impending challenges, including a huge financial liability on farmers themselves. Moreover, will they really be willing to join the scheme?

In a recent interview, Minister of State for Power and Renewable Energy RK Singh informed about a scheme viz the Kisan Urja Suraksha evam Utthaan Mahabhiyan (KUSUM), which the Government proposes to implement over a period of three years.   

Intended to promote the use of solar energy in rural areas, KUSUM allows a farmer to use his barren land — currently lying fallow — to set up a solar plant on it for 1 MW or so (in case the land is cultivable, he can set it up on stilts and grow crop below). Whereas, during the crop season (spanning over three to four months), the farmer can use the power for cultivation, for the remaining part of the year, units generated at the plant will be purchased by the Centre.

The Union Government will give capital subsidy to cover 30 per cent of the cost while the State will bear another 30 per cent. Of the balance 40 per cent, the farmer will get 30 per cent as loan at a concessional interest rate and will have to pay 10 per cent from his pocket. The total cost of implementing the scheme is estimated to be about Rs 146,000 crore, of which the Centre’s contribution will be Rs 34,000 crore.

The scheme has the potential to bring about a fundamental transformation in not just the way farming is done to augment farmers’ income but also help in giving a new lease of life even to power distribution companies (DISCOMs), which at present are literally on a ventilator, gasping for life.

For the farmer, the solar plant will not only supply all his electricity requirement (for running pump sets and other needs, including domestic consumption) but also generate surplus, particularly during the non-cropping period, which can be sold to generate cash. Besides, this will drastically reduce spends on diesel (irrigation bill can go down by as much as 90 per cent) and help reduce the load on the environment. Saving on oil import bill will be an added bonus.    

At present, there is overexploitation of ground water, courtesy unrestricted availability of electricity at heavily subsidised rates (even free in some States). However, in a scenario of having their own power source juxtaposed with an incentive that they can increase their income by selling surplus power, the farmers will be motivated to shun the current unhealthy practice, thereby conserve and prevent depletion of ground water.   

For the DISCOMs, this could be a blessing in disguise. Currently, a major reason for their incurring loss year-after-year is the supply of power to farmers and households at heavily subsidised rates or even free (under direction from their owner viz, the States). Even after charging exorbitant rates from industries, they are unable to make up for the shortfall in realisation from sale to these preferred consumers. Their woes are exacerbated by large-scale power theft.

Now, if farmers can meet their power requirement from the captive source (solar plant), this will obviate the need for supply from DISCOMs. When the latter does not have to supply electricity to the former, the losses associated with such supplies (albeit at subsidised/below cost tariff) will automatically disappear. 

In short, the scheme could be a gateway to a wonderland wherein farmers will be better off, DISCOMs financially healthy and environment will bear less pain. But this scenario appears too good to be true.   

Given the State of Union’s precarious finances, garnering the required resources of Rs 34,000 crore for capital subsidy will be a big challenge. For the same reason, getting the States to contribute another 30 per cent will be a daunting task. Even more worrying is the balance 40 per cent, which has to be arranged by the farmer. Apart from the 10 per cent, which he has to give upfront, the responsibility of amortising the loan component, 30 per cent, falls entirely on him.      

Today, the Government perceives the farmers’ economic situation to be so precarious that it was prompted to give Rs 6,000 annually to the farmers under the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) so that they can buy agricultural inputs such as fertilisers, seeds and pesticides among other things. How then are they expected to pay a huge sum of Rs 4.5 million @10 per cent (cost of 1 MW solar plant: Rs 45 million) being their contribution upfront?  Servicing the loan of Rs 13.5 million (30 per cent of Rs 45 million) will be even more excruciating as interest alone at subsidised @7 per cent will come to Rs 945,000 annually. Moreover, till such time the solar plant is commissioned and becomes operational, it will be double-whammy for the farmers, who will continue to spend money on diesel for running the pump set in addition to servicing the loan. They may not survive for the day when the gains from captive source start accruing.  

Given the impending challenges in particular, a huge financial liability on them, the big question is whether the farmers will really be willing to join the scheme. This is most unlikely all the more when for decades, they are used to free/heavily subsidised power arranged by power-hungry politicians, who thrive on populist measures such as this. When the present is easy going, why would they transit to an effort-based, self-driven system san sops? KUSUM may be a non-starter!

(The writer is a New Delhi-based policy analyst) 

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

With the South Korea-Japan spat escalating, it is unlikely that the US can play a mediatory role. The fallout of such dispute will affect the world economy

At a time when both Japan and South Korea are expected to cooperate in addressing multiple economic and strategic challenges in the East Asian region, they are embroiled in a serious trade dispute, which threatens to escalate and even spill into other areas like security and regional supply chain.

That the bilateral relations between the two have long been plagued by historical and territorial issues is well-known. But this time around, it is not the usual historical wrangle but a more serious and substantive trade dispute that poses a challenge to their ties. The current issue, which has created a serious diplomatic row between the two, relates to the action taken by Japan to put restrictions on its supply of semiconductor manufacturing materials to South Korea.

On July 4, Japan started implementing a new policy of restricting its supply of three critical materials involved in the manufacture of semiconductors — photoresist, etching gas and fluorinated polyimides — to South Korea. Restrictions on more such sensitive materials are expected to follow once the policy gets into full swing. Under this policy, Japanese companies supplying these materials to South Korea will have to seek the Government’s approval for each contract — a cumbersome process that would take at least 90 days for clearance.

For a long time, South Korea has enjoyed a preferential treatment in the supply of these sensitive materials, which contributed to Korean companies like the Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix among others, to emerge as giants in the semiconductor field. Today, they make nearly two-thirds of the world’s memory chips, which are used in a wide range of products from smart phones to cars. If these companies go out of their stockpiles, it will cause serious disruption to the global semiconductor production.

On August 2, the Japanese Government followed up on its earlier action by removing South Korea from the “white list” of 27 countries, which enjoyed preferential treatment in the supply of sensitive materials from Japan. South Korea is the only Asian country which joined the list in 2004. The latest action of the Japanese Government will come into force by August 28 and is regarded as a serious threat to the Korean companies.

Expectedly, this has provoked sharp reaction from Seoul, which considers the Japanese action as politically motivated. Many in South Korea perceive it as a retaliation to the recent Korean court ruling, asking Japanese companies like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Nippon Steel and Sumitomo to pay compensation to Korean workers, who were not paid for their labour during the Japanese colonial period.

Japan strongly protested the court’s ruling  on the ground that this would undermine the very basis of the post-war bilateral relations. The Japanese Government further clarified that both countries had already settled all war-time labour disputes under the 1965 — $500 million was paid to South Korea in aid and loans at the time — Japan-South Korea normalisation treaty. Japanese leaders fear that the court’s verdict could open the floodgates of never-ending claims for compensation from different quarters.

But inside South Korea, the court’s verdict enjoys considerable support, particularly among the younger generation. There are even voices that doubt the legitimacy of the 1965 Treaty itself, which they claim was signed by a military dictator, Park Chung-hee.

The issue has already created a complex diplomatic row between the two countries. Basically, Japan has clarified that its measures to curb the export of the three materials are closely connected with regional security concerns as it doubts the effectiveness of the monitoring mechanisms of South Korea. It alleged that some of the sensitive technologies have reached North Korea, thereby raising serious security concerns.

But the same has been denied by the South Korean Government, which has given evidence to prove how Seoul has tightened its vigilance against any illegal diversion of these sensitive materials to North Korea. South Korean President Moon Jae-in has himself taken the position that Tokyo’s restrictive measures run “counter to the history of the development of bilateral ties” and called for their immediate halt.

Warning that these measures would be counterproductive as they would ultimately “cause great damage to the Japanese economy itself”, apart from “destroying the framework of South Korea-Japan economic cooperation accumulated over half a century”, he also complained that Japan’s action would “cripple the global supply chain and wreak havoc on the global economy.”

Anti-Japanese sentiments have quickly picked momentum in South Korea, resulting in the boycott of Japanese products, temporary closure of many Japanese business establishments, decline in the number of Korean tourists to Japan and cancellation of many private air services to Japan.

Undoubtedly, bilateral relations have now sunk to the lowest level since 1965 and to stem the further decline, it is necessary for a friend outside power like the US to intervene and mediate. One would like to recall the mediatory role played by the then-President Barack Obama in 2014 at The Hague, in a bid to reduce tensions between the two countries. But current US President Donald Trump is different from Obama and he does not inspire the same degree of trust and confidence as his predecessor did.

Nevertheless, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met the Foreign Ministers of Japan and South Korea together in a bid to reduce bilateral tensions and to urge them to accept a “standstill agreement” to gain time to find a “pathway for dialogue.”

Analysts doubt the ability of   Washington to play any mediatory role given Trump’s strong push for “America First”, his transactional approach to South Korea and Japan on security issues, his obsessive anti-China postures and unsuccessful bid to denuclearise North Korea.

With no prospects of any truce in the escalating trade friction, more Japanese exports regulations will come into force from August 28 and they could virtually restrict any product on national security grounds to South Korea.

Faced with such a grim situation, the South Korean Government seems to be in a mood to take counter-measures against Japan.

First, it may consider terminating a military intelligence-sharing pact, which is coming up for renewal by the end of this month. But the US is very much interested in its renewal and it remains to be seen whether it can persuade Seoul to renew.

Second, Seoul is also thinking of removing Japan from its own “white list” of countries that receive preferential treatment on trade and will

proceed to file a formal complaint with the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Third, Seoul has already informed Japan that it may not consider it as a “friendly” nation for ignoring along “history of cooperative relations.”

(The writer is a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. Earlier, he was a professor of Japanese Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)

Writer: KV Kesavan

Courtesy: The Pioneer

It’s unfortunate that leaders choose to ignore the truth or deliberately serve the interests of lobbies who want to maximise profits without regard for the future impact of climate change

The UK has been quite unique as a developed nation, having enacted the country’s Climate Change Act in 2008. According to the Committee on Climate Change, a statutory independent body, by 2017 its greenhouse emissions were 43 per cent below 1990 levels while the economy grew by two-thirds over the same period. The Act calls for the UK to reduce these emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. The remarkable aspect of this Act is that it cuts across party lines and binds the country to a set of measures enacted by Parliament. But, of course, much more needs to be done now to ensure that human society does not allow the earth’s temperatures to exceed 1.5°C by the end of this century.

Meanwhile, according to meteorological information, the year 2019 has already crossed previous limits and is heading towards becoming the hottest year on record. At the same time, all across the world, there are extreme events ranging from heat waves to extreme precipitation events, which have increased in frequency and intensity. This year there were also reports that a widespread area in the Arctic had raging fires right from Siberia to Alaska.

The Arctic region, according to the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published in 2007, estimated that the Arctic region was warming at twice the rate of the rest of the globe. The extreme heat this year and in earlier periods is also melting the Greenland ice sheet at a rapid rate, which would enhance sea level rise dangerously. Drastic measures are required to curb greenhouse gas emissions and these include lifestyle changes as well.

It is questionable whether the new Prime Minister of Britain, Boris Johnson, is truly committed to action on climate change and certainly, he is not likely to make any lifestyle changes himself or motivate others in the UK to do so. This writer had addressed a gathering of professionals in London in 2008, where he clearly highlighted the need for reducing meat consumption, based on his plea, “Please eat less meat, because you would be healthier and so would the planet.” The UK beef industry, of course, was very critical of this appeal but surprisingly, so was the current Prime Minister of Britain, who was then the Mayor of London.  He wrote an op-ed piece in the Daily Telegraph on September 9, 2008, which while ridiculing advice to cut down on meat consumption, wrote the following.

“No, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, distinguished chairman of the panel, I am not going to have one meat-free day per week. No, I am not going to become a gradual vegetarian. In fact, the whole proposition is so irritating that I am almost minded to eat more meat in response.

Every weekend, rain or shine, I suggest that we flaunt our defiance of UN dietary recommendations with a series of vast Homeric barbecues.”

Johnson ignores the fact that the IPCC makes no recommendations. Its assessments are policy-relevant but not policy prescriptive. He states further, “We are going to have carnivorous festivals of chops and sausages and burgers and chitterlings and chine and offal, and the fat will run down our chins, and the dripping will blaze on the charcoal, and the smoky vapours will rise to the heavens.

We will call these meat feasts Pachauri days, in satirical homage to the tofu-chomping UN man who told the human race to go veggie.”

There is considerable speculation in the British media on whether Johnson’s live-in partner Carrie Symonds might actually be able to influence his position on climate change, perhaps with some changes in lifestyle as well and possibly have him forego the excessive craving for meat feasts, which he had referred to as Pachauri days.

While one can be amused with Johnson’s humour, it would be unfortunate if the Prime Minister of a country as important as the UK, and which has had the vision of enacting its climate change law, sticks to his old position. Who knows, perhaps he has actually reduced his meat consumption because he certainly seems trimmer than was the case when he was the Mayor of London. It may be that Symonds will be a productive influence on the man who is now the British Prime Minister and, thus, send a message to the public in that nation.

Johnson in his article also stated, “Man is an omnivore, culturally and probably biologically programmed to take protein from meat; and those meat animals must be farmed.” The meat industry undoubtedly was thrilled with this view.  Sadly, Johnson obviously has not realised that the entire global meat cycle is very intensive in the use of energy, right up to the stage where households store meat in their refrigerators. 

Added to that is the clearing of forests as pastureland, such as with the Amazon rainforest, and providing CO2 intensive feed material produced in larger and larger quantities for livestock. An IPCC report just released provides a stark warning of land just not being available on planet earth if we consume meat at current levels. This report establishes the escalating conflict between meat production and other more essential uses of land.

Sadly, the current President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, who subscribes to US President Donald Trump’s and Johnson’s views, has recently sacked the head of the National Institute for Space Research, which has been monitoring deforestation in the Amazon region. After Bolsonaro’s assumption of office, deforestation in June was estimated by this organisation as 88 per cent higher than the same period last year.

It is unfortunate that leaders of major countries choose to ignore the truth or deliberately serve the interests of lobbies, who just want to maximise their profits without regard to the future impacts of climate change.

This mental inertia has to be overcome through public consciousness and grassroots action, as has been the case in several countries of the world. It is the youth of the world who now need to take the lead and implement actions to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, which are responsible for human-induced climate change.  

Fortunately, this is now gaining momentum with the efforts of Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish activist, and the Protect Our Planet (POP) movement being implemented in several countries. But when do we get leaders with a conscience and those who care about our future?

(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-15)

Writer: RK Pachauri

Courtesy: The Pioneer