The US’ move to delete India from a preferential list won’t have much of an impact, or will it?

It may make for some unpleasant optics at a time of sub-continental tension, where the US pressured Pakistan on dismantling its terror network and led the Western world on isolating it over the Pulwama attacks, but its decision to take India out of a preferential trade list — one  that allows $5.6 billion worth of Indian exports to enter the US duty-free — is not such a big deal. First things first, this move has nothing to do with geopolitics or our global diplomatic prowess and impacts just a fraction of our trade volumes. Considering that China is the bigger threat for both the US and India, the world’s largest democracies wouldn’t want to mess with their strategic relationship and lose sight of the big picture. The US move was also not country-specific, it was announced at the same time as a halt on trade preferences for Turkey. It came two days after Trump’s reference to India as a “very-high tariff nation.” Besides, his demand for a “reciprocal tax” on goods from India is in keeping with Washington’s concerted attacks on India’s trade stance. This is also a pressure tactic to compel us to negotiate on sectors such as medical devices, mainly stents, dairy products and IT. And what better time to do it than when it is easier to coerce us at a sensitive time and seek a counter favour? Though India has kept the doors open to a compromise, it has said that it would not back down on the affordability of stents, a move that has dented US manufacturers substantially.

In 2017, India had capped prices of cardiac stents and knee implants, slashing them by over 70 per cent and 60 per cent respectively. The move impacted US giants like Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific and Stryker. India had also insisted on a change in the certification procedure of dairy products, that their source animals be never fed blood meals and that this would be “non-negotiable” from a cultural standpoint. And if the US could comply with halal and kosher standards, this could easily be factored in too. The US move is expected to have minimal impact as exporters here were deriving duty free benefits of only $190 million of the total $5.6 billion-worth of GSP items traded. Around 1,900 of our products, including raw materials and intermediaries across sectors such as organic chemicals and engineering goods, have been circled out. Exports in other categories like articles of iron or steel, furniture, aluminum and electrical machinery and parts could also be affected. But experts say with the economy growing at a rapid pace and diversifying into newer markets, particularly in Africa and Latin America, the losses resulting from withdrawal of concessions could easily be offset. Of course, the full extent of the loss can only be gauged by which of our competitors enters the US market to fill in the demand gaps. Needless to say India has been the biggest beneficiary of the GSP regime and accounted for over a quarter of the goods that got duty-free access into the US in 2017. Considering that even the US and China have simmered down their trade war, all doesn’t seem to be lost at this stage.

Courtesy: Pioneer

Writer: Pioneer

Only two months are left for NEET exam that is tough with a vast syllabus, tricky questions and negative marking. Rajshekhar Ratrey shares tips on how one can get that perfect score

This year, over 15 lakh aspiring students have registered for the NEET 2019 exam, which will be held on the May 5, 2019. This is a record-breaking number and almost 2 lakh more than last year itself.

At present, the Government and private colleges in most States choose their MBBS and BDS candidates based on NEET score. The exam is an extremely tough exam with its vast syllabus, tricky questions, and negative marking scheme for incorrect answers.

In spite of this, the number of applicants has constantly been on the rise. Why the sudden jump in the number of applicants? There are two reasons for this 14 per cent rise in applicants.

Hours before the application deadline for the exam closed, the Supreme Court announced that students above 25 years of age are eligible to take the exam. To help these students complete their application forms.

The second reason is, that NEET is now a mandatory exam for all students who want to pursue their MBBS and BDS courses abroad.

With this sudden rise in applicants, the number of students competing for a single rank has also increased. This means, that students will have to learn better, aim higher, and attempt as many questions as they can while maintaining a high percentage of accuracy. Practice is the key to a high score. s a NEET aspirant, you only have two months before your final exam. Spend as much time practising as you can.

Prioritise the chapters that you practice based on the weightage that exam authorities have given in the past.

Download an app that gives you adaptive practice. In simpler words, these apps create unique learning paths for every student depending on their unique needs. If your basics are weak, it will create questions that build your fundamentals. As you improve, it will keep raising the level of questions until you ace the tricky ones.

Take a mock test every day for at least a month.

In the last month before your exam, you should start taking mock tests at the same time of the day as your final exam.

Ensure that you take it in a time-bound, exam like environment

Develop answer strategies – Which subject will you attempt first? What is the most amount of time that you should spend answering a question?

Keep evaluating your incorrect answers. Make a note of concepts that you keep getting wrong. Moreover, categorise your incorrect answers.

Did you start solving it correctly and then get confused?

Did you have no idea how to solve the question?

This will help you prioritise your revision. Since NEET has negative marking, accuracy is as important as volume.

Make short notes and flashcards of formulae, diagrams, and other concepts that you keep getting wrong. Have a look at these during your last minute revision.

Ensure that you understand the concepts instead of rote learning them. There’s no room for doubts!

Clarify your doubts immediately.

When you just have about 60 days left before an extremely critical exam, you cannot wait for your teachers to free up time so that you can clarify your doubts.

Get your doubts solved immediately, or else you will keep repeating the same mistakes in every mock test that you take.

You can download a doubts on chat app to clarify your doubts instantly, 24X7.

Here, you can chat with experts at any time of the day or night and they will answer your questions.

Keep your mind calm, stay focused, and give it your best shot.

The writer is VP, Educational Content Head, Toppr

Courtesy: Pioneer

Writer: Rajshekhar Ratrey

The lack of will has allowed a non-disputed issue like the Ram Janmabhoomi to acquire such dimensions. It’s high time we get over old complexes and act as free citizens

Many an onlooker would be laughing at the manner in which India has dealt with the Ram Janmabhoomi issue. Until 1947, it was understandable that the Hindus held no trump card to win at Ayodhya, but why the lackadaisical handling of the issue thereafter? In 1949, the local court allowed the mahants to place the idol of Rama on the chabutra so that the worshippers would have access to the deity. That was sufficient to delight most devotees until 1983 when the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) appealed to every village to send a brick or Rama shila to Ayodhya. This was symbolic of their desire to build a Rama temple. Other members of the Sangh parivar kept aloof until 1989, when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) included the temple in its manifesto. On December 6, 1992, the demolition of the Babri edifice took place. A fortnight later, the BJP distanced itself from the demolition. Thereafter, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board claimed ownership of the land and dragged the dispute to court and still after 27 years, it remains unresolved. This despite the Archaeological Survey of India testifying that there was a stone temple below which the Babri structure had stood.

This writer’s associates overseas are amazed at the lack of will which allows everybody to make a mockery of a non-dispute. Experts have identified about 3,000 temples, which over the centuries, were either converted or recycled into mosques. Hardly a single place of worship has been restored to the Hindus despite seven decades of our Independence. On the contrary, over 100 temples have been desecrated in Kashmir over these seven decades. It is distinctly possible that easy conquest, again and again over centuries, introduced a sadistic habit into the psyche of the conquerors, who then perpetrated a variety of crimes and cruelties on the conquered. They acquired an inclination to obtain pleasure out of inflicting pain on others. Nearly seven centuries of the invaders’ rule may have reduced the vanquished to acquire a slave mentality. Such a state of mind could well have affected the conquered people in the absence of any alternative source of political pressure.

To obtain pleasure by being subjected to pain has been classified by psychologists as “masochism.” This is a psycho-sexual disorder in which erotic release is achieved through having pain inflicted on oneself. The term derives from the name of Chevalier Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, an Austrian, who wrote extensively about the satisfaction he gained by being beaten and subjugated. The amount of pain involved can vary from ritual humiliation with little violence to severe whipping or beating. While pain may cause a certain amount of excitement in many people, for the masochist, it becomes the chief end of activity. The term is frequently used in a looser social context in which masochism is defined as the behaviour of one, who seeks out and enjoys situations of humiliation or abuse. More commonly, the association of pain with sexual pleasure takes the form of both masochism and sadism, the latter obtaining sexual pleasure through inflicting pain on others. Often, an individual will alternate roles, becoming aroused through the experience of pain in one instance and through the infliction of pain in another. Perhaps, this explains why we have yielded ground so easily.

Ever since Professor Max Mueller, German philosopher, delivered his lecture in Westminster Abbey, London, in 1873, the six great religions of the world have been broadly classified into two categories. Missionary religions: Buddhism, Christianity and Islam; and non-missionary religions: Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Judaism. In the case of the missionary religions, it is a sacred duty cast on the followers to spread faith among the non-believers until, as it were, it is accepted by all members of the human family. It is only in the case of Islam that its followers have resorted to forcible means to convert non-believers.

For example, Professor Sir Thomas Arnold, who was the principal of Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh in the 19th century, recorded the following: “India is a country where Islam owes its existence and continuance in existence to the settlement of foreign conquering Muhammadan races, who have transmitted their faith to their descendants and only succeeded in spreading it beyond their own circle by means of persecution and forced conversions.”

Ever since Islam was born in Arabia, it came into conflict with Judaism and Christianity. The clash mainly occurred because of the common characteristics of the two faiths rather than the differences. One book of faith; one leader; one religion and, in the latter, a similar missionary zeal. Professor Bernard Lewis, the eminent American scholar, observed: “The see-saw attack and counter-attack between Christianity and Islam had begun with the crusades and they ended with a conclusive Christian defeat.” Besides, for almost a 1,000 years, from the first Moorish landing in Spain to the second Turkish siege of Vienna, 1682, Europe was under constant threat from Islam. In the early centuries, it was a double threat not only of invasion and conquest but also of conversion. Having conquered large parts of southern Europe, Muslims imposed their Sharia on Christians.

For a millennium, from the Arab invasion of Sind in 712 AD till the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, Hindu society was equally under the threat of conversion and conquest. This happened because after the death of Harsh Vardhana in 647 AD, Hindu rulers of north India generally embraced one idea: Self-aggrandisement, which spelt but only ruin.

It is well-known that Mahmud Ghazni had led several expeditions into India but Hindus seemed to think that history teaches but one lesson, namely, there are no lessons to be learnt from history. Alberuni, the distinguished astronomer, who had accompanied Mahmud, wrote that Anand Pala, after his own defeat at the hands of Mahmud, wrote to him. “I learn the Turks have rebelled against you. If you wish, I shall come to you or send my son with 500 horses, 1,000 soldiers and 100 elephants. I have been conquered by you and, therefore, wish that another man should not conquer you.” Such examples of Hindu mindset abound. In this context, an eminent Indian historian said, “The people en masse seldom act except as they are led. Given effective leadership, they are capable of achieving almost anything.”

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had invited the distinguished historian, Sir Arnold Toynbee, to deliver the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad memorial lectures. In the course of them, he expressed surprise that two prominent mosques stood on the bank of the Ganges at Benaras so many years after Independence.

He went on to quote the example of Warsaw, whose biggest church had been converted from Catholic to an Eastern Orthodox place of worship when the Russians conquered

Poland. When, however, a century later, the Poles were able to free themselves, they demolished the Russian church. They promptly replaced it with a Roman Catholic edifice of worship. That is what Sir Arnold expected of Indians too. Indeed, it is high time, Hindus got over their old complexes and became self-confident free citizens.

(The writer is a well-known columnist and an author)

Courtesy: Pioneer

Writer: Prafull Goradia

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani needs to focus on domestic issues and address the simmering grievances of Iranians so that they feel assured that the ideals of the 1979-Islamic Revolution are not lost

The Islamic Republic of Iran has completed 40 years of its historic 1979 Revolution that brought forth a new era — the beginning of the Khomeini regime and the exit of the Pahlavi dynasty from the political country’s scene.

On February 1, that very year, Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, popularly known as Imam Khomeini landed in Tehran from his long exile in Paris. He is believed to have been received amid revolutionary cheers by one of the largest crowds in history.

With this, what descended in Iran was a brand new rule of the clerics under the guidance of Supreme Leader Khomeini on the basis of the principles of rule by Islamic jurists known as “Velayat-e Faqih”.

The Islamic Revolution gained momentum from January 1978 till February 1979, leading to numerous events aiming to overthrow the pro-western Pahlavi monarchy.

Particularly, the leftists and the liberals who supported the revolutionaries to oust the autocratic Shah, in fact, misjudged Khomeini and his core clerics. He and the rest of his unelected mullahs did never go back to the holy city of Qom permanently as it was expected. During the initial days of his reign, many of the secularists, prostitutes, homosexuals, adulterers and Shah’s officials were executed to clean up the country.

It was all justified in the name of purifying the new revolutionary state. By violating the revered principles of “Vilayat-e Faqih”, he selected then President Ali Khamenei as his successor.

The current Supreme Leader and his regime, which possess enormous powers to directly control the elected President and the rest of the Government agencies, has been keeping a tight rein on the ordinary Iranians.

Thus for many, the commemoration exhortations of the Revolution are simply an annus horribilis. Khomeini and his followers, whom many call as “The Beards”, have changed the course of history of Iran. And they led the country to a direction that provoked sharp western reaction and rivalry in the following years. The defiant clerics indeed set the tone for a new war game on the sectarian lines, claiming Iran as the new leader of the Shias, countering the region’s Sunni leadership headed by Saudi Arabia.

One Saudi journalist once described that these two countries are intractable enemies — “fire and dynamite”.

Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, Tehran has made serious attempts to export its revolution in the region. It has been alleged that successive regimes have used diplomacy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and subordinate organs of the state to spread the Shia doctrine to counter the growing fundamentalist influence propagated by Sunni nations in West Asia.

The IRGC’s wings such as the Baseej and the Quds forces, numbering millions today operate in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. At home, the Guards literally control almost all aspects of society. Its involvement beyond the region is strongly felt, particularly in Central Asia, Latin America and widely in Africa.

It is argued that Iran is using its soft power and substantial resources to expand its zone of influence in reshaping African Islam and the continent’s political climate. Africa is strategically important for Tehran because nearly 45 per cent of its people are Muslims. So to extend the country’s quest for dominance in the Muslim world, engagement with African populace both through religious forays and financial support is a must.

While Iran is celebrating its grand achievements of the Revolution, it is worth looking into the pros and cons of rising protests in the country. Why people are wary of the current political system? Are they searching for an alternative or demanding vital changes in the status quo? Iran has witnessed historic protests, bringing tens of thousands to the streets across the country. These protests have marked the worst scenes of unrest since the controversial elections of 2009 when millions came up and demanded justice known as the Green Movement.

As of now public resentment is primarily vented against the clerical leadership and President Hassan Rouhani’s commitment towards some of the vital foreign policies. Simply put, these outbursts have clearly exposed a political miscalculation by the hardline opponents of President Rouhani who mainly wanted to discredit his economic policies.

But then the public anger has spilled over taking the shape of a second Iranian revolution. What started off as a protest spurred on by deteriorating economic conditions and inflation in prices of basic goods have finally given warning signals both to the current regime and to ageing Khamenei.

Initially, Iranians came up to raise their voices against Rouhani’s plan to raise fuel prices in an attempt to lower Government debts. And this all came on top of increasing unemployment of the young people, estimated to be over 40 per cent across Iran. Set against this downward economic spiral, common people are angry at massive spending on war games around the troubled conflict zones of Syria and in Africa.

Also people are tired of decades of continued support extended to the Lebanese Shia militia group called Hizbollah. The young people are seriously concerned about the high cost of living in Tehran.

It is interesting to note how the rest of the world has reacted to the sudden outbursts of public anger in Iran. Two US Presidents — Barack Obama and Donald Trump — have raised alarms. When the 2009 protests broke out, Obama reacted cautiously saying a forceful American intervention (reviled as the “Great Satan” by the Iranian revolutionaries) could make America, a rallying cause for the clerics. But then the boisterous Trump and his Vice-President took no time to side with the protesters.

Trump and his Administration are gleefully rooting for regime change in Iran, which could be potentially dangerous for the entire region. Beginning of this year, he tweeted, “Iran is failing at every level despite the terrible deal made with them by Obama administration. The great Iranian people have been repressed for many years. They are hungry for food and for freedom. Along with human rights, the wealth of Iran is being looted. Time for change.”

Around the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin says these demonstrations are internal affairs for Iran and external interference is unacceptable.

Those young protesters, who are still treading in that revolutionary vineyard, can definitely find it going tough amid crude repression and severe surveillance of the security forces. Crying foul against Rouhani regime and Khamenei fiefdom may not help the commoners immediately. Rooting for sudden upheaval and change may seem to be dangerous both for the regime and for the ordinary citizens.

Gradual change, probably through all constitutional mechanisms and an electoral victory of the democratic forces might guarantee a safe future for all. But with millions of orthodox followers of Khamenei and an ever strong IRGC, a total recall of the clerical regime could only ensure bloodshed.

What persists today is an apparent confusion that has strongly confronted Iran since 1979 over how to reconcile the inherent contradictions between the Revolution’s ideological moorings and what exactly demands for an efficient domestic governance system and conducting of global diplomacy.

Iran today braces for evolutionary change. Its constant umbrage at the US and its allies in the region will simply deviate it from the primary goals of the Revolution. The days of “Down with America” may not entice as many young Iranians to support the clerics as it desires. These millennials look for jobs, stability and surely, global connectivity. Mullahs need to understand that the world is fast becoming flat with the onset of globalisation.

What is disturbing for the current regime in Iran is that apart from shouting anti-Government slogans, the distraught people are also reported to have circulated videos saying “Death to Khamenei” in public spaces. However, the veracity of such videos is still not verified by any credible media houses.

Democracy promotion in the Arab world normally embitters relations with the monarchies (those which are long standing allies of Washington) in the region, resulting into an isolation of a large chunk of their population who are vying for more freedom and popularly elected governments. Besides, a largely evident Shia-Sunni divide among the nations and their contest for regional dominance either through clerics or with the support of massive wealth has remained a permanent bone of contention. Today Iran’s closer ties with both Russia and China and a gradual withdrawal of American power umbrella from West Asia may further cause instability.

Much beyond Khamenei’s rhetorics against the West, particularly America, Rouhani, being a democratically elected leader, needs to find the roots of long simmering grievances of the people. What he had promised way back in 2013 during his first term in office is long gone. His slogan of “hope and prudence” around which he galvanised support from the Iranians is fast fading. His simply saying, “Iranians have the right to protest legally” and blaming outside influence over the volley of protesters will not bring an end to this problem. Nevertheless, it is good for him to realise that “The space needs to open up for protest and criticism”.

On the other hand, those who want to impose or rather desire to see the emergence of a western style democratic system in West Asia must realise that stability is more important for many than a liberal leviathan. An Arab Spring kind of an upheaval may not be reassuring for a basic guarantee of life, liberty and living for ordinary people. Complete and sudden recantation of the existing system in Iran may lead to a breeding ground for radical Islamic movements such as al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Equally, extolling Khamenei and his ever expanding clerical regime may further anger the commoners and counter-productive for the revolutionary ethos to sustain.

(The writer is an expert on international affairs)

Courtesy: Pioneer

Writer: Makhan Saikia

The return of IAF pilot Abhinandan to India from Pakistan’s custody, last Thursday, was met by a combination of relief and celebration in India. Relief because, in the light of what happened to some Indian soldiers during the Kargil war of 1999, there were grave concerns over his safety and well-being. Ironically, the videos of Abhinandan capture and subsequently, which Pakistan attempted to use for propaganda purposes, may have ensured that nothing untoward happened to him. But this relief that a brave pilot who distinguished himself by downing a Pakistani F-16 aircraft — which Islamabad still hasn’t formally admitted to — has returned home to resume his duties was coupled with a celebratory mood.

This mood stemmed from the fact that Indians were aware that the Narendra Modi Government hadn’t negotiated Abhinandan’s release. Despite the attempt by Pakistan to use an Indian soldier to force India to “negotiate”, the Modi Government has refused any talks unless there is credible evidence that the infrastructure of terror that has been built across the border is dismantled and action taken against the organisers of terror. If despite this refusal, Pakistan felt compelled to release Abhinandan hastily, it is not because Prime Minister Imran Khan is a large-hearted sportsman. The Pakistan Prime Minister was unquestionably an accomplished cricketer but his apparent magnanimity was triggered by two factors. First, he needed to look statesmanlike, which is understandable. But more important, confronted with a beleaguered economy and dwindling diplomatic support, particularly after the UN Security Council resolution against terrorism directed at India by the JeM, Pakistan has very little room for manoeuvre. The jihadi problem may have predated Imran Khan but it has cost Pakistan dearly in every possible way. Earlier, Pakistan has leveraged the Cold War and its position as a frontline state in the Afghan war to bargain its way. Today, that is no longer possible. The country’s bluff has been called and the world wants it to atone for its sins, particularly its patronage of global jihadist.

Imran’s gesture may have impressed India’s small community of liberals who were against the air strikes on the Jaish-e-Mohammed camps in Balakot in the first place. This isn’t because they are particularly fond of the JeM or even Pakistan, but because they can’t countenance any move that could lead to Modi becoming the personification of the Indian mood. Consequently, despite being fully aware of Pakistan’s track record of duplicity, including its role in giving shelter to Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, they have chosen to believe stories of India’s air strikes in Balakot being purposeless. The logic is simple: promote anything to undermine and discredit Modi.

The latest claim is that India has lost the “war of perceptions” to Pakistan. The theory is not based on any analysis of Indian diplomacy — of its record in mustering the support of 105 countries in its campaign against terrorism —but almost entirely on what some foreign journalists have or have not said. It is a different matter that the publications have lost sight of the fact that the present crisis arose from the killing of 44 CRPF jawans in Pulwama and the central issue is terrorism. To them what is relevant is that India has a Government led by Modi and that Modi must be brought down several notches, even if that involves putting a failed state such as Pakistan on a pedestal. The coverage of India’s conflict with a rogue Pakistani state has been reduced to partisan positions on India’s domestic politics.

In justification, it is claimed that this unending scepticism is a counter to the Indian (electronic) media’s xenophobic posturing. Whether the Indian media is excessively shrill and nationalistic or perceives itself as a patriotic vanguard is for the readers and viewers to judge. There is a media war, which to some extent is an extension of the culture wars that have been fought over the past four years, which is of relevance to the journalists and social media gladiators. However, state policy cannot and must not be shaped by this battle. As the custodian of national interests, the Indian Government has a paramount responsibility to its people, and not least the overwhelming majority that identifies itself with the nation. The shift in the country’s strategic doctrine from the do-nothing approach of, say, 2008 to the willingness to cross the Line of Control when necessary was a response to pressure from below — a sentiment that Modi understood and acted in accordance with. True, there are other expressions of opinion in India but they should be accommodated only if they are broadly in synch with national priorities — including the relentless war on terrorism.

In reality, India is today not a divided house. In all the conflicts, there have been the odd dissenting voices. In 1962, during the war with China, a section of the Communists chose to be partial to China. In 1971, the CPI(M) equated Indira Gandhi with Yahya Khan. And during the Kargil conflict in 1999, the Congress baited the Government unendingly, hoping that the failure to recover the heights would lead to Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s defeat in the election. It is that same game that is being replayed today. But just because there are awkward noises being made, it doesn’t imply that the nation should get distracted. Democracy, unfortunately, also confers rights on those whose values don’t correspond with national priorities. They have to be tolerated but not heeded.

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Writer: Pramod Pathak

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has a key role to play in reducing the tensions between the two countries caused by recent events. What is needed is a collective, region-wide campaign against terrorism.

India and Pakistan joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) during its June 8-9, 2017 summit held in Astana, Kazakhstan. Before the addition of the two nations, the members of the SCO included China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. The now eight-member SCO also has four observer states, including Afghanistan and six dialogue partners, including Sri Lanka. In total and together, they constitute much of the Asian geography with a population of over three billion people. The foundational purpose of SCO as the largest inter-governmental organisation in the world is to strengthen mutual trust and promote good neighbourly relations among member  states. This is to be achieved through gradual but consistent efforts by SCO member states to engage in multi-faceted cooperation to advance their collective and common interest in the sustainable human and protective security of the SCO space. Parallel to this, the SCO seeks to establish a more democratic and rational world order.

Because sustainable peace makes sustainable development possible in Asia and the rest of the world, the SCO summits continue emphasising the importance of results-driven security cooperation among its member states, observer states and dialogue partners. The addition of India and Pakistan was widely welcomed as a significant opportunity for the SCO to address lingering security threats of terrorism, extremism and separatism in South and Central Asia. Same intertwined threats have provided an enabling environment for organised criminality, while also deepening poverty that denies the youthful populations of Asia the socio-economic opportunities and facilities they need to contribute to the sustainable development and peace of their individual nations and collectively to those of the rest of Asia.

That is why Chinese President Xi Jinping at the 18th SCO Summit in Qingdao called on the SCO’s expanded membership to move from talk to action. He stated: “We need to actively implement the 2019-2021 programme of cooperation for combating ‘the three evil forces of terrorism, separatism  and extremism;’ continue to conduct the ‘peace mission’ and other joint counter-terrorism exercises…We need to give full play to the role of SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group to facilitate peace and reconstruction in Afghanistan.”

President Xi added, “Countries are increasingly interdependent today… confronted with many common threats and challenges that no one can tackle alone. Only by enhancing solidarity and partnership, will we be able to achieve lasting stability and development.” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who addressed the summit as a newly admitted member state, echoed his Chinese counterpart, floating the concept of ‘secure’ to underpin the work of SCO: ‘S’ for security for citizens, ‘E’ for economic development, ‘C’ for connectivity in the region, ‘U’ for unity, ‘R’ for respect of sovereignty and ‘E’ for environmental protection. He highlighted instability in Afghanistan as an “unfortunate effect of terrorism”, noting: “I hope the brave steps towards peace taken by President Ghani will be respected by all in the region.”

Moreover, Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed the accession of India and Pakistan to the SCO. He stressed that “countering terrorism remains the priority for cooperation within the SCO”, underlining that the three-year programme of action, adopted at the 18th Summit, “envisions holding joint drills and counter-terror operations, streamlining a closer exchange of experience and operational information.” He also encouraged the SCO Youth Council to “actively participate in the work on preventing the recruitment of young people to participate in terrorist activities.”

Building on these and other statements from the SCO member states, calling for quick and concrete action to fight and eliminate terrorism, the Central Military Commission of Russia conducted a six-day joint military exercise from August 22-29, 2018, in Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia. The joint exercise was initiated by the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure of SCO (RATS-SCO), which included tactical operations with a focus on strengthening counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency preparedness, coordination and cooperation among the SCO member states. Around 3,000 soldiers, including 748 from China, 167 from India  and 110 from Pakistan, participated in the joint drill.

Indeed, for India and Pakistan, it was their first such joint military exercise since their independence in 1947. And this raised much hopes about the prospect of the two countries participating in the ‘Peace Mission 2018’ and future ones to move beyond decades of routine skirmishes along the Line of Control and to begin building inter-military confidence through SCO measures, thereby easing tensions between the two nations. Commenting on this shortly before the joint exercise, Sun Zhuangzhi, a professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times, “It is a rare opportunity for Pakistan and India, which have long been involved in military conflict, to enhance military exchanges and trust. This could improve regional stability.”

Contrary to these expectations, however, a rapid escalation of violence between India and Pakistan since February 14, 2019, has been a cause for serious concern in the SCO neighborhood and the rest of the world. On February 14, Pakistan-based terrorist group, Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), carried out and later claimed a suicide attack on a bus, carrying Indian Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel in Pulwama district of Jammu & Kashmir. The attack killed 44 CRPF men. This unprovoked act of terrorism was internationally condemned with calls on Pakistan to rid its soil of terrorist networks and to dismantle their support infrastructure, including safe havens and training facilities. India promised retaliation and, on February 26, conducted surgical air strikes that hit “the biggest training camp of JeM in Balakot, Pakistan.” Many militants under training at the camp are reportedly to have been killed by India’s air strikes.

Although the international community has called for restraint by India and Pakistan and de-escalation of tensions between them, now is the time for the SCO’s founding member states to act on their often-stated common objectives to restore, ensure and maintain peace, security and stability in the SCO space. In the last SCO Summit, President Putin emphasised that one of the SCO’s key priorities was to assist “in the political and diplomatic settlement of conflicts near the external borders of the organisation’s member states.”

Any escalatory moves by India and Pakistan could lead to the breakout of a larger conflict with far-reaching implications within the SCO’s own borders. The organisation should lose no time in engaging with the two countries to have them refrain from further retaliatory measures in favour of returning to direct dialogue for a resolution of mounting tensions caused by recent developments.

While this should be SCO’s immediate goal, the RATS-SCO should be tasked to identify and assess the presence of major terrorist groups and their support infrastructure throughout the SCO region. Then it should map out a results-oriented counter-terrorism plan of action for adoption by the SCO member states, whose counter-terrorism efforts the RATS-SCO should verify to ensure no distinction between and among terrorist groups. In other words, verification by RATS-SCO should expose for correction duplicitous counter-terrorism policies, which remain an impediment to effective counter-terrorism in South Asia.

As President Ashraf Ghani said while condemning the February 14 terrorist attack in India, “terrorism is a cancer in the region and requires collective efforts to root it out.” The SCO can and should initiate to lead a collective, region-wide campaign to fight and eliminate the cancer before it spreads in multiple destructive ways throughout the SCO region.

Afghanistan has done more than a lion’s share in fighting terrorism with regional and transnational roots. Our full accession to the SCO will only enable us to do a lot more, helping our neighbours, including India, Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran, address the intertwined threats of terrorism, extremism and criminality.

(The writer is the Ambassador of Afghanistan to Sri Lanka as well as Senior International Security Fellow at the New America in Washington, DC)

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Writer: M Ashraf Haidari

As our hero pilot is back and UAE and Saudi Arabia are helping defuse tension, India must take the diplomatic way

With Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman back home after Pakistan, under tremendous international pressure, released him from captivity, let’s remember what he stood for. First, his extreme courage under fire. He chased back a fleet of hostile Pakistani jets when they crossed the LoC and shot down a latest Pakistani F-16 with a vintage MiG-21. Second, his extreme alertness and presence of mind. Brought down by the Pakistani side, he followed his survival drill to a T, swallowing papers, junking other evidence in a pond, shooting at locals in self-defence before he was overpowered and roundly thrashed. Third, grace under pressure. As a true soldier, he held his own, revealing only his name and number and skillfully dodging mindgames by his captors.

In short, his poise and dignity remind us how hereon we should pursue a path of equanimity. True, we have just about started a new fight against terror, and the deep strike into Pakistan to smash a Jaish base does not mean that our problems are over. In fact, they may have just begun, requiring us to be ever ready along the LoC. By attempting a “non-military, pre-emptive” strike on terrorist bases that plan bombings in India, we have opened a new path of staying way below the nuclear threshold and yet protect our national security. And with terrorists gone from the frontline, Pakistan will find new ways of provoking India. So with this paradigm shift, we have to be on the ball and extremely vigilant about a Pakistani offensive. We could do so without brashness and bluster, instead consolidate our diplomatic offensive and build on the gains made so far. In fact, it is the diplomatic isolation of Pakistan globally on the anti-terrorism plank that helped us get back Abhinandan in record time, considering the history of Indian PoWs in Pakistani captivity.      

India should now continue to press its point home and reverse opinions. This is borne out by the fact that the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) named us a chief guest and did not withdraw that status despite the airstrikes. This miffed Pakistan so much that it decided to stay away from its ongoing edition. Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj, in her speech at OIC, highlighted that the fight against terrorism was not a confrontation against any religion. She even gave a conscience call to “tell the states who provide shelter and funding to terrorists, to dismantle the infrastructure of the terrorist camps.” An indirect reference to Pakistan. This space was unthinkable even last year when the OIC was uncomfortable about Army presence in Kashmir and easily fed on Pakistani propaganda. But countries like Bangladesh have been arguing for expanding the scope of OIC so that India could get observer status. India itself has been citing its Muslim population base as a marker of eligibility. A bigger coup is getting the support of Saudi Arabia and the UAE. While the West, led by the US, worked the lines with Pakistan to defuse tension along the LoC, it is the Saudis who played a crucial role in convincing Pakistan to simmer down and release Abhinandan. Although Saudi Arabia is a close ally of Pakistan and has its imperatives, it still sees India as a key market and acknowledges the contribution of our workforce to it. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince even rushed a minister to Islamabad with a key message. The UAE has emerged an ally, too, its Crown Prince stressing the “importance of dealing wisely with recent developments and giving priority to dialogue and communication.” And though China considers Pakistan an all-weather friend, even it did not want to risk India’s goodwill for fear of losing a stable trading partner given the US rebuff on that front. Its commonalities with us are bigger than differences. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi firmly told  Pakistan that China “does not want to see acts that violate the norms of international relations.” If India spearheads the fight on terror in the region diplomatically and works for a consensus approach, it will give us bigger gains.

Courtesy & Writer: Pioneer

As the Delhi-Mumbai Expressway moves towards manifestation, will it become one of India’s master showpieces?

The old National Highway 8, now numbered NH48 as part of the Golden Quadrilateral, the link between Delhi and Mumbai, India’s two largest cities and economic centres, has been around for years and constantly getting upgrades. Yet, the proliferation of towns on the highway as well as industrial zones, from Gurugram and Manesar in the north to Silvassa and Vapi closer to Mumbai, has meant that the highway is now clogged with both commercial and private vehicular traffic. There is a need for a proper access-controlled expressway that can allow for fast movement between the two cities, bringing down transit times to a day or less, especially with newer generation heavy vehicles. This is vital as despite the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) for trucks moving between the two cities, there are huge jams thanks to traffic and poorly managed toll booths.

In fact, alongside GST and the gradual introduction of the ‘FastTag’ automatic toll collection system, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari are working wonders on India’s roads, the arteries of the nation. The Delhi-Mumbai Expressway though is not just a road — it is just a small part of the massive industrial and commercial corridor being envisaged between the two cities. Parts of the Dedicated Freight Corridor of the Indian Railway have already opened that will link factories in north India to the deep water ports of Gujarat and Maharashtra. This new Expressway will serve like a fast-charging cable and will supercharge the economy. However, the Roadways Ministry and Expressway Operator must ensure a few things are done properly. The first is to see there is no rampant overloading of trucks, which damages India’s roads. In addition, a proper access controlled highway needs to be just that; there are far too many instances where access-control has not been respected with villagers treating the road like a local right-of-way. A high-speed Expressway is just that, and while safety norms have to be maintained, the movement of slower vehicles has to be restricted for overall safety. India’s roads are a mess and running with blood because of the nonchalance with which we all tend to drive. Policing has to improve in cities with the help of technology as is happening in Delhi right now on the Ring Road, where cameras will start a system of automated red-light jumping fines and eventually automated speeding fines. China has already done that on all its major expressways. Also, while work on this particular Expressway has moved forward, much work remains to be done to ensure India gets a proper network of similar ones across its length and breadth.

Courtesy & Writer: Pioneer

At the time of the 1962 war, China’s Air Force could not fly because of a lack of fuel. It possibly got some from Tajikistan, where the superpower is building its new base. Here’s why we must keep a watch.

Some time ago, The Washington Post published an article titled, ‘In Central Asia’s forbidding highlands, a quiet newcomer: Chinese troops’. The article reported: “Two miles above the sea level in the inhospitable highlands of Central Asia, there’s a new power watching over an old passage into Afghanistan: China.” According to interviews, satellite images, photographs and first-hand observations by a Washington Post journalist, it was found that Chinese troops have settled in one of the most strategic areas of central Asia, termed “a choke point in Tajikistan.”

The US newspaper said, “Tajikistan — awash with Chinese investment — joins the list of Chinese military sites that includes Djibouti in the strategic Horn of Africa and man-made islands in the South China Sea, in the heart of Southeast Asia”, adding “the modest facility in Tajikistan — which offers a springboard into Afghanistan’s Wakhan Corridor a few miles away — has not been publicly acknowledged by any Government. But its presence is rich in significance and symbolism.” The region has been (and is) still highly strategic. Last year, a publication, ‘The 1959 Tibetan Uprising Documents: The Chinese Army Documents’ was released on Kindle. It was a collection of top secret documents of the military intelligence of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), dating from the end of the 1950s till the 1962 war with China.

At that crucial time, China had a serious problem — it did not have an Air Force in a position to take on the Indian Air Force. The compiler of the above mentioned paper noted: “Disadvantage of the Chinese Air Force is still a major problem in case of a conflict with India. Indian jets can start at a low altitude with a full load of bombs and plenty of fuel. Also, India has many airports only about a 100 kilometres from the highest peaks of the Himalayas. Short distance and higher bomb load mean each Indian jet is at least twice if not three times more effective than a Chinese aircraft.” Apart from the fact that many airplanes had been sent to the Korean front and that the Soviet Union had stopped supplying spare parts for the MiG fighter planes, the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) had a major hurdle: No fuel for its few planes.

The amount of gasoline reaching the plateau from China via the Qinghai-Tibet or the Sichuan-Tibet highways was not enough to maintain a large occupation force on the Tibetan plateau (read the Indian borders) and at the same time, provide the necessary fuel for the PLAAF. One of the published documents mentioned secret statistics for “border trade” and the import of fuel, gasoline and other commodities between 1953 and 1967.

What do the statistics show? In 1958, gasoline of 380 tonnes was imported into Tibet; in 1959, nothing; in 1960, 2,220 tonnes, in 1961, 96 tonnes and in 1962, 30 tonnes. This means that in 1960, there was a huge surge in fuel import. But import from where?

There was no possibility of any gallon passing unnoticed through Nathu-la or Jelep-la — the two main passes between Sikkim and Chumbi Valley (Tibet) — ditto for the passes in Uttarakhand or North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA) (Arunachal Pradesh today) or even Demchok in Ladakh, which had been closed for trade by the Chinese.

The author of the publication presumed that “corrupt”  Indian officials had let the fuel be smuggled in. That, too, was not possible. First, the officers of the Indian Frontier Administrative Service, posted in these areas, were the most upright people, and in any case, considering that a mule could only carry 40 kg per trip, it would have meant thousands and thousands of mules, which did not exist on the plateau …and they would have to have been transparent.

After pondering over the issue, my conclusion was that this amount of gasoline could not have crossed any Indian or Nepalese border post into Tibet. It left few other possibilities. One was the Soviet Union. Though it had just split with China, relations between Beijing and Moscow had reached a breaking point by 1959.

The only possibility was some under-the-table purchases through corrupt officials in Tajikistan or Kyrgyzstan. I got convinced that the gasoline had come from the same area in Tajikistan where China is today building a new base, at the edge of the Wakhan corridor and Xinjiang.

An interesting lead: Tursun Uljabayev, the party secretary of Tajikistan in 1960, was sacked and imprisoned for serious corruption a year later. In all probability, gasoline from Tajikistan was transported to Kashgar (or Tashgurgan) in Xinjiang and then taken over the Aksai Chin to be used in western Tibet. It could have been done at night via the road cutting across Indian territory, which was the best protected artery in China in the 1950s and early 1960s as only the PLA was allowed to use it; the traffic could have gone unnoticed for several months. It was probably why Uljabayev was caught and the import of gasoline into Tibet drastically fell in 1961 …and by 1962 China had no fuel for its aircraft.

The above findings have two important corollaries. One, it confirms that the Chinese had no Air Force in flying condition at the time of the 1962 conflict with India, having no spares and no fuel. This was recently confirmed to this writer by Wing Commander ‘Jaggi’ Nath, who extensively flew over Tibet in secret missions between 1960 and 1962.  He was awarded his first Maha Vir Chakra medal for this (he got his second in 1965 for mapping the Pakistani defences).

The second upshot is that the area, where the Chinese are today building their new base, is highly strategic, being a relatively easy link between the oil-rich Central Asia, Afghanistan (through the Wakhan corridor), the restive Xinjiang (the hub of Xi Jinping’s Road and Belt Initiative) and Tibet.

This raises another issue: Why did the Indian Government, which had all the information about the situation in Tibet, the deployments of the PLA on the plateau and the lack of Chinese Air Force (‘Jaggi’ Nath was never attacked or even followed during his regular sorties over Tibet), not use its jets to pound the PLA concentration near the Thagla ridge in the Tawang sector in Walong area of eastern NEFA or in Rezang-la in Ladakh? The only answer is a woeful lack of leadership. Let us hope that the present bosses watch what is happening in this area.

(The writer is an expert on India-China relations)

Courtesy : The Pioneer

Writer : Claude Arpi

Both India and Pakistan must avoid serious conflict that will hardly help either country. Better sense must prevail. True progress will happen when Pakistan starts to wind up the terror factory operating on its land

The military disaster of 1971 forced the Pakistani establishment and its military, which runs the country for all practical purposes, to face up to the fact that they could never win a conventional war against India. If Pakistan was to avenge humiliation and cut India down to size, it had no choice but to fight through proxies and bleed India through a thousand cuts.

This idea must surely have germinated from its successful employment of Islamic militants — the forerunners of the Taliban — to oppose the rule of the Marxist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) that had deposed former President of Afghanistan Mohammed Daoud Khan in what came to be known as the Saur or April Revolution of 1978. It was this Pakistani-fomented insurgency that finally led to the Soviet intervention and occupation of Afghanistan in December 1979.

Incidentally, while conventional wisdom would have us believe that it was the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that came up with the idea of using militants to fight the Soviets, facts show that it came to the party much later and only added its considerable resources to the techniques perfected by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence in the use of irregulars for its own ends.

Thus, from the early 1980s, Pakistan commenced its support for secessionist elements within India that were involved in fighting against the state. First, the Khalistan Movement and subsequently, with greater success, in Jammu & Kashmir. It clearly had advantages as there was credible deniability and the economy of effort with the dirty work being done by proxies, keeping the Indian security forces tied down and finally, the most important of all, creating fear and anxiety within the general population that impacted every aspect of our democratic way of life.

There is, of course, one major disadvantage of using proxies. They tend to have a mind of their own and often times, respond inappropriately or work at cross purposes to what its mentors may be wishing to achieve. The Pulwama suicide attack falls in this category. There have been numerous statements over the past four years that have made it clear that Pakistan prefers to deal with Indian Governments run by the more “liberal and secular” parties, compared to having to deal with the more conservative, Hindutva-driven Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). With elections around the corner and with the BJP facing the very real likelihood of a serious decline, if the recent State elections were any indication, it would have been in Pakistan’s best interest to maintain a low profile.

Masood Azhar, the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) supremo, obviously had a different view. Not only did his organisation carry out the suicide attack that led to the death of 44 CRPF jawans but also went on to take credit for the action. Thus, in one thoughtless act, he not only destroyed the Pakistan Government’s attempts at deniability but also made Imran Khan’s call for India to provide credible evidence infructuous.

Most importantly, the timing of the devastating attack left the Modi Government with little choice but to respond overtly and with speed, if it was to still retain any hope of doing well at the hustings. There was also a possibility that if India responded in an effective manner to the outrage, the Government’s stock would go up rapidly and that would enhance Modi’s reputation and chances of return to power, just as the earlier cross-border strike helped the BJP in the Uttar Pradesh elections. This could hardly have been to Pakistan’s advantage and in the event the attack was facilitated by the Army, then General Bajwa has certainly made a serious miscalculation.   

Regardless of the number of casualties that the Indian Air Force’s attack on terror camps deep inside Pakistan may have caused, the very fact that the Indian Government displayed the intent to take on terrorists inside Pakistan has clearly changed the narrative prevalent for the past four decades. It has also shown up Pakistan’s repeated threats of a nuclear riposte as sheer hyperbole and bluster.

More importantly, the initiative has finally shifted in India’s favour along with world opinion, which has had enough of Pakistan’s duplicitous behaviour. Moreover, any escalation above a perfunctory retaliation, which was to be expected to assuage domestic opinion, by Pakistan would destroy the fig leaf of deniability it has used over the years. Crucially, it would force their military into a direct confrontation, something that the proxy war waged by them over the years allowed them to avoid.

In this context, one can only hope better sense will prevail and we will be able to avoid serious escalation of the conflict, which can hardly help either side, given the huge challenges we face in lifting vast swathes of our population out of the twin evils of poverty and illiteracy.

However, it must be emphasised that true progress will only occur as and when Pakistan starts to wind up the jihad factory it has built over these years. In any case, the Indian cross-border raid cannot be a one-off affair and we must be willing to do all that it takes to neutralise the jihadi network and its vast army of financiers, managers and facilitators.

Finally, while all our attention may be taken in dealing with the issue at hand, the fact as to what led to the Pulwama attack must not be lost sight of. For this serious lapse on the part of our intelligence services, it is imperative that heads must roll. There have also been clear indications that despite increasing numbers of militants being neutralised in the Valley, the Army and other security forces were being increasingly marginalised, especially in south Kashmir, because of popular discontent.

They had consequently lost their ability to dominate the countryside, thereby losing out on intelligence. These aspects continued to be ignored by the Central Government and the military hierarchy. Little thought was given to the necessity for reviewing either counter insurgency strategies or tactical procedures and the leadership continued to be swayed by tactical successes with little attempt to resolve the growing disillusionment and radicalisation within the population, especially the youth. This must certainly change.

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

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Writer: Deepak Sinha

The Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) has surprised everyone by announcing an interim dividend of 40 per cent for fiscal 2018-19, which amounts to about Rs 279 crore.  With this move, the company has maintained its impeccable track record of rewarding investors by uninterruptedly paying high dividends for over four decades. Significantly, with this, BHEL has paid the highest total dividend in a single year, in the last 5 years.

Atul Sobti, the chairman and managing director of BHEL, in the presence of Dr AR Sihag, Secretary, Department of Heavy Industry (DHI), presented a cheque of Rs 176 crore towards the interim dividend for the year 2018-19 on the equity (63.17 per cent) held by the Government of India, to Anant G Geete, the Union Minister of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises.

Accelerating its growth momentum, BHEL has reported a surge in revenue and profitability up to the third quarter of FY 2018-19. The company has delivered a resilient performance due to adoption of strategic initiatives like diversification into new business areas (higher-rating electric locomotives, solar equipment and projects, enhanced offerings for nuclear primary side, e-mobility product and solutions and railway electrification and so on), accelerated project execution and cost control and resource optimisation measures, resulting in significant progress in enhancing profitability and productivity.

Courtesy & Writer: The Pioneer