In the present situation, the conflicts in Afghanistan calls for a bottom-up approach to attain peace. A number of stakeholders will need to place high regard in standard, values, including diversity and human rights.

In the recently concluded NATO summit, Afghanistan has yet again surfaced as the boiling pot that has witnessed offbeat power play in the last few years. As conflict in the region continues to escalate — witnessing violence orchestrated by the internal disjunctions between the Taliban and the Islamic State (IS) that has larger repercussion on global security — countries far-flung from Afghanistan seem to be rattled by violent premonitions.

It is pertinent to note that Afghanistan has transformed not just as a sight for peace-building exercise but also as a major focal point for countries to establish their prowess by elevating global status, and in doing so, engage in newer bandwagoning and balancing techniques. It is, therefore, essential to scrutinise some of the unusual actors involved in the conflict and thereby lay down a newer perspective to look at conflict settlement in the rapidly enveloping humanitarian crisis in the country.

Who are the peacemakers?

While the US’ presence in Afghanistan is barely unaccounted for, forthcoming countries, such as Uzbekistan and Gulf countries, are scrambling for strategic footprint.  The neighbourhood is no less pummelled by the Afghan bug. Following a slow weeding out of forces in Syria and Iraq, the US Air Force has amplified its deployment significantly in Afghanistan,  recognising it as the theatre of violence in today’s date.

Two major conclusions emerge from their heightened strategic engagement: First, the tangible implications in the form of economic and trade opportunities that are seen as a crucial element for the respective country’s national interest. And second, the subjective aspect of status and the larger narrative behind national security. As status elevation accorded to the peace-maker is a major objective for big players, including China, the US, India, and the European nations, the Afghan conflict — oozing from the turbulence designed by the Taliban and IS, compounded by the under resourced Government forces to fight independently — has brought all the above on their toes.

While traditionally, Afghanistan has been engulfed in big power politics, including the regional hegemons — India and China — tussling for greater global recognition, the Afghan conflict seems to have attracted newer players in the large scale. Tashkent recently announced hosting a peace dialogue between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, advancing on the decade-long effort in establishing peace in the region. Both at the domestic and international level, involvement in the Afghan conflict is slated to complement progressively the former Soviet Republic’s image.

In a conference previously, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev announced, “We stand ready to create all necessary conditions, at any stage of the peace process, to arrange on the territory of Uzbekistan direct talks between the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban movement”.

Equally strategic has been the involvement of regional actors, such as Turkey. The only Muslim country to hold a membership of NATO, Turkey has been rather consistent with its Afghan policy. It seems since antiquity, Turkey has held peace-building in Afghanistan as a core element of its foreign policy outreach.

Early this year, Turkey held discussions with officials from Taliban’s Qatar office on forwarding a practical resolution to the Afghan conflict. This was complemented with Turkey’s attempt to strike a balance between its relationship with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

While the Afghan Government’s growing dissention with Pakistan has further deteriorated the former’s negotiation abilities with groups such as the Haqanni network and the Taliban, Turkey has entered the scenario as a befitting third-party mediator,  differing with the US on launching military strikes against the Taliban which would incur larger humanitarian loss. Recently, Turkey held talks with Pakistan’s former Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif to come at a resolution to the Afghan conflict. To what extent this would bear fruitful results for major stakeholders as well as the Afghan Government is contestable, owing to Pakistan’s intentions, which are more inclined towards ensuring a stronghold in Afghan functioning than on establishing peace.

Nevertheless, Turkey emerges as an indispensable actor in the peace process, also owing to the role it has played in bringing the ousted Vice President Dustom back into the picture, who has prominent allies in northern Afghanistan. In terms of humanitarian aid as well, the Turkish Government has made significant investment of around one billion dollar in economic development projects that have strengthened Afghanistan’s infrastructure and education systems.

Bereft of the neighbourhood of Afghanistan, the involvement of Asian giants, including Australia, has been eye-catching. Sydney’s concerns about the conflict in Afghanistan adequately feeds into its agreement to increase troops in Afghanistan in the NATO summit recently. Last year over a meeting with President Ghani, Australian Prime Minister Turnbull conceded, “Since 2001, we have supported Afghanistan in its efforts to tackle terrorism and build a stronger, more stable and resilient nation.”

Beyond peace and stability?

As countries across continents are eager to engage in peace-building efforts, heightening their international presence in the global domain, the question of when peace and what would that entail for the people of Afghanistan is far from the discussion table. Perversely, the United Nations reported that the civilians reached a record high in the first six months of this year. According to reports, some 1,692 fatalities were recorded, with militant attacks and suicide bombs being the leading cause of death. In this scenario, the approach of exhaustive military attack seems largely unnerving and fatal, to say the least. Instead, bringing the dissenting fraction to the table ought to be the focus for peacemakers.

Equally worthy is the role of the locals, including women, concerns of whom have often been ignored in the dominant narrative of peace making. According to the feminist approach to conflict resolution, inclusive dialogues that ensure adequate representation and take into consideration local factors of the region, are the foundational element of peace-building. And this immaculately applies to the prevailing scenario in Afghanistan that qualifies as a tough case for major stakeholders involved. It has been a Herculean task, even after increasing deployments in the region, to maintain ceasefire for longer than a week at a go.

Furthermore, what makes the feminist approach appealing is the post-conflict techniques that would preferably ensure a stable framework of governance and peace in the domestic realm. The Afghan conflict, in the present state, necessitates a bottom-up approach to attain peace whereby multiple stakeholders need to place high regard in universal values of human rights and diversity. The national security concerns or status perceptions or economic trade-offs will carry substantial value. However, at the core remains the underlining values and the procedural aspects that guide peacebuilding.

And in this scenario, the universal values, instead of restricted understanding of national interest, ought to be the cornerstone for the institutional arrangement laden with the role of peace-building and conflict resolution.

(The writer is Senior Analyst, Global Risk Insights)

Writer: Baisali Mohanty

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The blanket ban on protests around Delhi’s iconic Jantar Mantar on Monday was lifted by the Apex Court which said peaceful protests in the area are allowed.

There are good reasons in principle for the Supreme Court’s lifting of a blanket ban on protests at the Jantar Mantar announced by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) last year. The Green Tribunal, hearing a Public Interest Litigation submitted by residents in the area complaining about declining environmental standards, had found merit in their argument and came to their rescue by ordering the authorities to look for an alternate venue for mass protests, which eventually the Ram Lila Maidan in the Capital became, but to the detriment of the space for voices to be heard. Against a total of about 24,000 requests received for permission to organising protests in the preceding years, just about 11 applications were received ever since the NGT’s ban. So, the NGT’s order had triggered serious resentment from all quarters which should now end. The ‘bonus’ in the apex court’s order, however, was the most surprising: The famed Boat Club Grounds around the India Gate central hexagon in New Delhi, which until the 1990s was the most preferred venue for protests, too was removed from the purview of the ban.

While it may be difficult to pin down the exact number of protests the Capital sees each year, the fact remains that in a country governed by the rule of law, the right to non-violent protest is a basic right and integral to the right to freedom of expression. This right can never be taken away, neither by the Government nor the courts, though a line must be drawn between what may be legitimate and illegitimate protest. This, more so at a time when we are living in an increasingly complex world and dissent is both our inalienable right but also susceptible to misuse aimed only at provoking societal tensions. The past decade, for example, has seen more people taking to the streets than even before in post-1947 Indian history. Jantar Mantar has been associated with many mass protests in our recent history. Be it Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement, farmers’ protests or those demanding justice for rape survivors in the wake of the Nirbhaya case. Even political parties and politicians have made a beeline for Jantar Mantar to register dissent. It is also true that the NGT’s ban took into account genuine concerns. For long, residents in the area had been suffering high levels of noise pollution particularly due to the unregulated use of loudspeakers, amplifiers, and drums. On this count, the top court in overturning the NGT ban has wisely upheld the cause of peaceful agitation whilst simultaneously instructing the Delhi Police Commissioner to frame guidelines on the dos and don’ts for agitators to follow. It is to be hoped that in the same spirit as respecting the freedom of expression, agitators will preserve civil forms of protest and not let demonstrations spill over into violence, destruction and/or defacement of public property and causing massive inconvenience to fellow citizens. When conducted responsibly, protests hold great potential to bring about change. Boundaries have now been drawn and the balance now needs to be maintained. Making a distinction between protests/demonstrations which have correctly been allowed at Jantar Mantar and Boat Club but with pollution curbs and responsibilities as they are a democratic right and help in fostering a participative democracy, and mass rallies which lead to chaos, damage of public areas, inconvenience the general public and are a safety concern, is vital.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The most important question which was raised 10 months before the 2019 General Election is that: “Is the BJP’s main voter eager to restate his/her command for the party?”

Could India be a ‘Hindu Pakistan’ or a ‘Hindu First’ nation after 2019? This is a futuristic debate politically well timed to trigger fear mongering ahead of the 2019 General Election. I have often written that the forthcoming election will be motivated by fear more than hope, as this prelude suggests, building up to a crescendo of what is expected to be one of the most communally divisive and personally vitriolic campaigns in post-Independent India. Let’s put both these labels of a ‘Hindu Pakistan’ or a ‘Hindu First’ nation down to just a play with words. Words, which politicians play with as dog-whistles for their constituents, and intellectuals use, but the man on the street is oblivious of. Because overdone clichés like ‘secularism’, ‘plurality’ and ‘inclusion’ are confined to television debates, full of sound and fury, signifying little.

So here we go again with Congress’s Shashi Tharoor igniting the flames of communal apartheid in what could someday turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy: “If the BJP is voted back to office, they would change the Constitution to make India a Hindu Pakistan.” And his conjecture is possibly right that only a lack of two-thirds majority in Rajya Sabha prevented the party from doing so. Thereafter ensued a riveting Twitter-riot in the virtual world, with Internet Hindu’s fantasising a Hindu Rashtra with a ‘Why not?’ attitude. Spearheaded by die-hards, the hashtag trended #IamHindu, with sentiments like “I am Hindu, my temples destroyed, history distorted, my Gods defamed, millions brutally killed. Don’t insult my faith. Don’t defame my Gods.”

What is missing in the Congress and the thus far ‘disunited Opposition front’ is their ability to craft  precision strikes at their bête noire, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, thereby skirting real issues of voter concern and governance deficits of the BJP. To challenge Modi through manufactured controversies like birthing a future Hindu Pakistan, is handing over the political narrative on a platter to the RSS and the BJP as messiahs of the majority community. That only helps keep the communal cauldron simmering, allowing religious polarisation to take precedence over economic well-being. In a flourishing economy and a fabled Land of Plenty, when people flourish, they prioritise abundance over conjured schisms.

The bottom line is that while Muslims constitute 14.2 percent of the population, it is the Hindus who comprise 78.8 percent of the electorate, and who form the core vote-bank of the ruling BJP. Clearly, Hindus will be Hindus at heart. And equally, Muslims will remain Muslims at heart, despite the BJP’s fighting for gender-justice for Muslim women, supporting reservations or implementing progressive social reform bills. Because, their historic bias against kafirs trumps any measures taken to liberate the community from regressive personal laws. This tweet encapsulates my assumption: “Dear PM Modi, please don’t try to win the support of #Muslim women. We don’t need you or your Sangh to rescue us.”

For the beleaguered community to depend only on the Congress that has flip-flopped back to soft Hindutva to win back Hindu votes they lost since 1986 is a travesty of faith, and leaves them politically orphaned. Even the Sachar Committee, constituted by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh way back in 2005, provided evidence of how Muslims fared poorly on all human development indicators, and continued to be excluded from mainstream development indicators. The community has long resented being treated as a pliant herd which traditionally voted as a monolith, and subsequently looked for an alternative in regional parties instead of remaining loyal only to the Congress.

Coming to the Hindu mindset, unambiguously even the most liberal and secular amongst the majority community desires a restoration of cultural supremacy within his own country. There may be little numerical evidence to back this feeling, but there seems to be a greater acceptability than ever to the idea of “What is so wrong with a Hindu Rashtra?” as the silence of the passive Hindu grows into a collective clamour sensed in tweets, Facebook posts, and WhatsApp forwards.

While rebuilding the Ram mandir is a symbolic sentiment of setting right historic injustices, revision of the constitution is a deep felt desire of Hindus who regretted the decision of our founding fathers in subjugating the rights of the majority community, or placing the rights of the minority on par with Hindus. While this discourse is unending, and not a new one, it has gained traction for three reasons: Hindus were emboldened after Modi’s ascension; growing Islamophobia is a global phenomenon; and the increasing insurgency in Muslim-majority Kashmir. Echoes of majoritarian assertion are reflected across the globe, with Israel’s Parliament just this week adopting a law defining the country as the nation state of Jewish people, provoking fears of discrimination against Arab citizens.

Hindus resentful of being relegated to second class citizens over 60 years of Congress rule feel their time has finally come, and that the will of the majority must eventually prevail, even if it means resorting to Constitutional amendments as mooted by RSS ideologues.

If the BJP-RSS idea of a Hindu Rashtra is to replicate a “mirror image of Pakistan where minorities are subordinated to the dominant religion”, I stick my neck on the block that even the most fierce antagonist amongst Hindus opposed to Modi will remain loyal to the idea of a ‘Hindus First’ nation. Because countries that are not theocratic states reject the idea of invaders, refugees or Islamic minorities domiciled in their host countries dictating government policies within their homeland in preference to a ‘natives first’ policy.

To elucidate this a bit further, when Jinnah succeeded in partitioning India on the premise that Indian Muslims cannot live in subjugation to the majority Hindu community, it was logical to assume an en mass migration of the minority community to the newly-formed nation of Pakistan. “The mass exchange of population was duly endorsed by independence activists of that time, while those 35 million Muslims voluntarily choosing to reside in India would do so with visas.”

It was Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi who, thereafter, pursued the policy of Muslim appeasement by offering minorities reservations and legislating a misogynist law that went against the SC verdict in the Shah Bano case in 1986. That was one of the biggest historic blunders of Congress in catering to Islamic orthodoxy and thereby being labelled as a party which was pro- Muslim men only. Today, the reality is that even moderate Hindus fear the Congress, the Samajwadi Party, the Bahujan Samaj Party, the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Trinamool Congress precisely because they prioritise ‘minorities first’ because they are the biggest beneficiaries of their votes.

RSS ideologues believe, “We the people of India can change what we gave ourselves in 1950,” as so far there have been 101 amendments to the Constitution, some of them under very questionable circumstances, as in the case of the 42nd amendment Act of 1976, called a “mini-Constitution” or the “Constitution of Indira”. So, what was man-made, man can certainly change. The Constitution was amended on grounds that it was responsive to the vox populi, the aspirations of the people, and reflected the realities of the contemporary times. “And those amendments could not be questioned in any court, and further, that there could be no limitation on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution ‘by way of addition, variation, or repeal’.”

A ‘Hindu First’ nation is an idea long overdue, and whose time has emotionally arrived. This is no longer a ‘fringe fantasy’, but has turned a mainstream aspiration today. Sense the frenzied call to unify in the messaging of rabid organisations like the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti: “Oh Devout Hindus! Due to a ‘secular’ democracy, the state of the society, nation and Dharma is on the decline. A Hindu Nation is the need of the hour as the only solution to the problems of Hindus.”

However, politically the time for a ‘Hindu First’ nation may just have lapsed and eluded India’s destiny, as 2019 is expected to throw up a fractured verdict, despite BJP returning as the single largest party. Modi achieved a historic mandate in 2014 because he promised to deliver economic prosperity.

The vital question 10 months before the next General Election is this: Is the BJP’s core voter willing to reaffirm his mandate for the BJP in the hope that Modi 2.0 will succeed in bringing India closer to becoming a Hindu nation? A mature democracy must judge for itself and give more weightage to a party or a political formation which is better placed to deliver long-term economic progress and corruption-free governance in preference to parochial issues.

(The writer is an author and columnist)

Writer: Bindu Dalmia

Courtesy: The Pioneer

In another round of elections which will held on 25th July, the Mullah Nexus is set to win in Pakistan. Again, the Pakistani Government will be ill-equipped to deal with the nation’s challenges.

As Pakistan goes to polls tomorrow (July 25), it appears that the blurring lines between mufti and mullah will converge further, to the detriment of its struggling democracy. The economic crisis, aggravated by unserviceable debts from infrastructure related to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, could trigger a complete meltdown, which a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (top priority of the new regime) may not be able to avert.

Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf (PTI) leader Imran Khan, for whom the military ‘deep state’ has reportedly ‘fixed’ the pitch, is unequal to the challenges of a failing currency, water and power shortages, Pashtun resurgence, and continuing violence by terrorists and Baloch insurgents. The military, equally unqualified to manage the crises, has suppressed all voices in favour of the PTI, Hafez Saeed’s Milli Muslim League (contesting under the banner of Allah-o-Akbar Tehrik) and other creations, including the Balochistan Awami Party.

Dawn (July 21) has reported Islamabad High Court judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui alleging that the Inter-Services Intelligence is “manipulating judicial proceedings” and has asked the Chief Justice to ensure that Nawaz Sharif and his daughter Maryam Nawaz remain behind the bars throughout the elections. Addressing the Rawalpindi District Bar Association, the judge said, “Their personnel get benches formed at their will”. He alleged that the Chief Justice was urged not to include him (Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui) on the Bench hearing the Sharifs’ appeals. Siddiqui was allegedly told that cases pending against him before the Supreme Judicial Council would be quashed and he would be made Chief Justice of the High Court by September.

Another disturbing development is the Ahmadiyya (167,505 voters) decision to boycott the elections due to persisting discrimination. The current voter list also omits Jewish voters (809 in 2013), for reasons unknown. Ahmadiyya woes began when Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (1971-77) succumbed to radical clerics and declared Ahmadis a non-Muslim religious minority (Amendment No II of the Constitution). Under Gen Zia-ul-Haq’s 8th Amendment, electoral lists were prepared for different religious groups. However, under Western pressure, Gen Pervez Musharraf reintroduced the joint voter list for all barring Ahmadis (Conduct of General Elections (Second Amendment) Order, 2002). Under Article 7C, Muslim voters were required to sign a declaration of belief in the unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad; those who refused were put on a supplementary list of voters in the same electoral area as non-Muslims.

The Nawaz Sharif Government, in the Elections (Amendment) Bill 2017, tried to modify the clause regarding finality of Prophethood, but was forced to restore the Khatm-i-Nabuwwat laws to their original form after an outcry. Pushed to a separate voter list that makes their identities and addresses public and makes them vulnerable to extremist attacks, Ahmadis opted for boycott, something they have done for nearly four decades.

Unsurprisingly, observers are questioning the conduct of the polls. Election observers from the European Union are unhappy that their visas and Government accreditations were delayed for weeks, giving them only few days on the ground before polling, whereas long-term observers earlier got five to six weeks on the ground. Journalists have complained of pressure to toe the Army’s line; those deviating have suffered. In March, Pakistan’s top private news channel, Geo News, was taken off the air. Anchor Talat Hussain tweeted that despite the massive rallies (of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz), news media “have been told to stay free of fact”; “A spineless media industry has obliged”; and “This country is in the grip of martial law.” Geo News returned after weeks of negotiations with the military whereby its executives reportedly agreed to curb criticism of the Army and judiciary.

Dawn reported disruption in its sales networks after publishing a long interview with Nawaz Sharif in May. The newspaper said the restrictions were “deeply alarming and should concern all free-thinking and democratic citizens of the country.” The elections have also been marred by harassment and arrest of workers of some parties; some suffered assassination attempts and terrorist attacks, including a suicide bomb that killed 149 people at a rally in Mastung, Balochistan (July 13, 2018).

Amidst growing concerns about the treatment meted out to the PML-N, Pakistan People’s Party and Awami National Party, the Pakistan Human Rights Commission, an NGO, said it was “gravely concerned over what it sees as blatant, aggressive and unabashed attempts to manipulate the outcome of the upcoming elections”. It expressed anxiety over the Army’s plan to deploy over 370,000 troops at polling sites, as against merely 70,000 in the general election of 2013, when the security situation was much worse. Even more ominously, the Election Commission has allowed Army personnel to transport ballot papers to and from polling stations, raising questions about the transparency of the vote.

The PML-N has alleged serious harassment by the military. Former Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi told the media that senior party members were coerced to switch sides (to Imran Khan) and threatened with corruption cases. Some members claimed to have been hounded through the courts. Abbasi’s nomination papers were challenged in the Supreme Court, but he was ultimately cleared.

Sharif was ousted in 2017 after the Pakistan Supreme Court upheld a charge of failure to disclose a company directorship while in exile in Saudi Arabia, from which he had not drawn any salary. Later, he was banned from politics for life and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for failing to explain how his family acquired four luxury apartments in London. Sharif is not listed as the owner, but the court ruled that his conduct violated a Constitutional provision that officeholders be “honest” and “truthful”. He thus became the only Pakistani official ever convicted under that law, which many felt was selective accountability. The real reasons for Sharif’s fallout with the Army are his attempt to prosecute former dictator Gen Musharraf for treason, and seeking peace with India. However, by promptly returning to face imprisonment, he has made himself a martyr for democracy in Pakistan. Come Wednesday, the Generals will likely succeed in making Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf the largest party and Imran Khan their proxy Prime Minister. But as the economic crisis escalates and mullahs in Parliament demand their pound of flesh, Gen Zia’s heirs may find it difficult to cope with the mess of their own making.

(The writer is Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library; the views expressed are personal)

Writer: Sandhya Jain

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Although Rahul Gandhi was permitted as a candidate for the position of Prime Minister at Congress Working Committee Meet but questions remain.

When Congress chief Rahul Gandhi first said publicly, in reply to a journalist’s question, during the campaign for the Karnataka Assembly election that he would be the Prime Minister if the Congress emerged as the largest party post-2019, this newspaper welcomed the clarity of political ambition unambiguously articulated. Events since, however, despite his spirited Lok Sabha speech during the debate on the no-confidence motion which Gandhi himself proceeded to undermine by the very theatrics he accuses the Prime Minister of indulging in, have not provided clarity on either the tactics or the strategy he will deploy to bring that ambition to fruition. The Congress Working Committee reconstituted by Gandhi met under his leadership on Sunday and gave its seal of approval to the Congress’ pitch for the post of Prime Minister for its leader as part of an Opposition alliance provided, of course, the said alliance manages to block Narendra Modi, who is the clear frontrunner, from returning to power. The CWC also authorised Gandhi to firm up alliances for the forthcoming Lok Sabha poll. Tactics, first. While much is being made of the fact that at the Press briefing following the CWC meet party leaders spoke of winning “around 200 seats” as a kind of benchmark for the Congress to put the issue of leadership of a non-BJP Government at the Centre beyond doubt, there is still a lot ambiguity on this score. For example, it was not stated that the Congress would not stake claim to the leadership position if it got 150 seats, or even 120-odd? It would behove us to remember that even at the last-mentioned seat tally the Congress’ strength in the Lok Sabha would still be roughly four times the seats of the next largest Opposition party. Put another way, unless it gets below 100 Lok Sabha the Congress is likely to be pitching hard for a leadership role and the major regional parties which expect to do well in their respective States are unlikely to settle for working under Gandhi. Heck, Chandrababu Naidu just recently took on Modi who he considers his “junior” because the latter became Chief Minister six years after Naidu took over as CM in 1995, forget Rahul Gandhi!

On strategy, it is clear that the Congress’ hopes of a much-improved performance are contingent on alliances in States where it is either weak or virtually non-existent so that anti-incumbency votes, though there is as yet no way of ascertaining their degree, do not get ‘wasted’. By this logic, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal are the only two States where the Congress chief may not have major problems in stitching up alliances given the primacy of the DMK and Trinamool Congress as the main anti-BJP political forces there respectively. In every other State, Gandhi is going to have a tough task at hand. In fact, political analysts point out that even the party’s minimum requirement of 120-odd Lok Sabha seats to be taken seriously as the putative leader of an Opposition alliance would require alliances with smaller parties in States where it is in a direct contest with the BJP such as Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Punjab as also Karnataka/Maharashtra where alliances by both sides have already more or less been finalised though seat-shares are yet to be worked out.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

It is the soldiers (Army) that has always called the gunshots in Pakistan. But when it comes to the General Election, it will disrupt the complete elected process to emerge as the arbiter of the destiny of that nation.

Writing about last week’s bloodshed in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistani daily, Dawn, wrote, “If there were any doubts that Pakistan still remains vulnerable to terrorism, the past week has put an end to them.” This is a polite but an irrefutable admission that willy-nilly terrorism is allowed to remain entrenched in Pakistan. Three separate attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan have claimed 150 lives, leaving 200 wounded. Among the dead were Awami National Party leader Haroon Bilour and Balochistan Awami Party candidate Siraj Raisani.

Notably, both political parties have been protesting against the suppression of the rights of their people and the hegemony of ethnic Punjabis. In Pakistan, ethnic Punjabis are predominant in the Army, civil administration, police force, intelligence organisations and Foreign Service. Though so far no terrorist attack of the magnitude of the three under discussion has taken place in the Sindh Province, nevertheless, Sindh does not lag behind in any of the non-Punjabi Provinces in having faced brutal terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks of this magnitude on the eve of General Elections carry more meaning than what meets the eye.

The Baloch nationalist movement is now a decade-old and under each military ruler in Pakistan, the Baloch people have suffered untold suppression and oppression. Some of their outstanding nationalist leaders have been liquidated mostly under fake encounters. Many of them suffered incarceration in false cases and biased judiciary had no qualms of conscience in being inimical towards them.

In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the Pakistani Army decimated the brave Pukhtuns, accusing them of complicity with the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Through carpet bombing, drone attacks and military operations like Zarbe Azab, the Pakistan Army got the credit of killing thousands of Pukhtun and destroying their habitats. The cry for a separate Pukhtun homeland, though suppressed brutally for some time by state authorities, has now resurged and the young Pukhtuns are swarming to the new movement in drones.

The crux of the matter is: Who are the people or organisations that undertook such bloodshed and for what purpose? People in Pakistan need not be told who the perpetrators of such ghastly killings are. Terrorist organisations, like TTP, Daesh (militant Islamic State group), Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi and others associated with them have a history drenched in blood. Whatever the frame and operational tactics of the organisation, they are ideologically same.

This July 25, General Elections in Pakistan will be the third such under the existing Constitution. The Constitution has been amended twice or thrice by military dictators and one civilian dictator. The last amendment made so far was by former military General Pervez Musharraf who was made the President after his term as Army Chief was over.

It was known to knowledgeable circles in Pakistan that the Army would manipulate the impending General Elections because it was under compulsion to do that. Senior echelons in the Pakistani Army understood that the world community no longer supported coup d’état and martial laws. Pakistan, now known for harbouring terror, is at pains to retrieve credibility as a law-abiding state and not as a rogue nation. It has become a compulsion for the Army to succumb to the democratic process.

The new game-plan of the Army is to accelerate terrorist onslaught, particularly on such political parties and candidates that are known to oppose the Army’s supremacy. Former Pakistan Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif and his party Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML (N)) have been targeted. Nawaz Sharif had forcefully demanded that in the light of the Constitutional provision, the Pakistan Army had to be subservient to the authority of the elected dispensation. This was nothing less than red rag to the bull.  The Army played a masterstroke: It roped in the judiciary to bring a case of corruption against Nawaz Sharif under Article 61 of the amended Constitution.

The judiciary in Pakistan has never enjoyed credibility with the civil society. Thus, the Army acting as proxy — a game in which it is adept at — managed to impose life-long ban on Nawaz Sharif from fighting the election. Not satisfied, the judicial authority sentenced him to 10 years in jail and his daughter, Maryam, who the Army apprehended might step into the shoes of  her father, has been sentenced to seven years in jail.

This was the Army’s first plan to forestall the return of PML(N) and it had been executed meticulously, thanks to a judiciary bankrupt of fair deal and fair conscience. The second safety valve manufactured by the Army was the creation of the Pakistan Tahreek-I Insaf (PTI) led by cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan.

The dharnas and protest rallies or the feigned long march which Imran Khan led in the past year could not be possible without the covert support of the Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).   Today, Imran Khan is enjoying the favour of being the head of the King’s party.

A close study of the history of the Pakistan Army will show that it has been the fiercest enemy of the democratic process in that country. Whenever it felt that democracy was on the verge of getting rooted in Pakistan, the Army played a game usually soaked in blood only to prevent the democratic process and intimidate those who dared to work towards the strengthening the roots of democracy in that country.

The policy of United States President Donald Trump indirectly accusing Pakistan of spreading terror in the region, especially in Afghanistan and Kashmir, has demoralised the Pakistan Army. Withholding of 300 million dollars of military and development aid has taken the wind out of the sails of the Pakistan Army. This has indirectly intensified the Army’s fears of being ultimately dominated by an elected Government in Islamabad. No wonder, the Pakistan Army will play a masterstroke at the end of the day and derail the entire election process to emerge once again as the arbiter of the destiny of the beleaguered nation.

(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University)

Writer: K N Pandita

Courtesy: The Pioneer

No-trust vote discussion at Lok Sabha has established the outlines of the 2019 general elections for both BJP and Congress.

Spare a thought for the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) which actually moved the no-confidence motion against the BJP/NDA Government on the issue of ‘unfair treatment and non-fulfilment of promises’ to Andhra Pradesh after its bifurcation. The debate on the motion was kicked off by its impassioned MPs, the issue got a passing mention from the main speakers of the BJP and the Congress, but that was about it. The two national parties, as expected, virtually took over the debate and the gladiatorial aspect of Indian politics was on full display as the campaign for the 2019 General Election with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Congress President Rahul Gandhi holding centre-stage effectively began on Friday. Stage, perhaps, being the operative word. Gandhi’s hug and wink aside — which did come across as childish, immature and too-clever-by-half behaviour which made most cringe in embarrassment but may play well with a less-discerning demographic especially on social media —  the substantive issues raised were on expected lines. Rahul Gandhi’s attack on the Government was focussed on the individual heading it, the Prime Minister. Though light on data, it can be argued that this strategy was not a bad idea in terms of agenda-setting because of tactical reasons — he had about half the time Modi did because of the Congress’ depleted strength in the Lok Sabha and statistics can always be countered with more statistics by the other side especially when the other side in in Government. Strategically, it was, as the Prime Minister also alluded to in his reply to the no-trust motion which the Government sailed through with a two-third majority, an attempt to test the waters for the acceptability of his being the Prime Ministerial face for the Opposition. On both counts, his supporters are clear that Rahul pass ho gaya though no such indications came from the stronger regional parties.

Of the five broad issues Gandhi raised, some struck a chord while others will be subject to the law of diminishing returns. On Rafale, the blowback was immediate. On the Jumla Strike moniker he bestowed upon the Prime Minister’s hyperbole, Modi pulled out the soldiers’ sacrifices card in his reply and more will surely follow but Gandhi did succeed in making his point; overplaying this discourse, however, may not work — after all, which politician doesn’t coin and use slogans in campaigns? On jobs, Gandhi scored given the gap between expectation and delivery though much has been done to formalise the economy and employment including promoting entrepreneurship. On Modi’s silence of vigilante violence against the marginalised, Gandhi may find that is a double-edged sword because if every act by a loony or misogynist or bigot is ascribed to the Prime Minister not reacting to it, that’s a slippery slope. On loan waivers, Gandhi was right; the Congress has taken the lead in providing this sop to interest groups before successive elections and such is the nature of competitive politics in contemporary India that the Government will probably have to go down the same path of fiscal irresponsibility even if it bankrupts us. Modi’s reply was a masterclass in not letting the personalisation of the debate by Gandhi — he can’t look me in the eye, the gentleman is a tad nervous et al — detain him longer than it takes to swat the proverbial fly. He replied with pointed barbs — namdaar, the proclivity of first family of the Congress to do in any political competitor who challenges its leadership playing on the can’t look me in the eye number etc — but kept the bulk of his response Prime Ministerial and reeled out data in support of his pitch. In the process, he showed just why he is superman for the simpatico going into the Lok Sabha election.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

A number of sources have revealed that Congress, SP, BSP, and RLD have almost arrived at the decision of the seat-sharing agreement. The agreement is a conventional formula that makes sure some seats are reserved for the winning candidate and for the second positioned candidates as well. Based on the formula, Congress may get 8 seats.

For some time now, there has been no talk of the Congress going it alone in Uttar Pradesh. People say the party is expected to find a place in the alliance of the SP and BSP. Earlier, it was being said that the Congress would go solo and field as many forward candidates as it can to counter the BJP, but now this debate has been put to rest. Leaders who are trying to forge a Mahagathbandhan in UP are of the view that all anti-BJP forces have to fight together and there should be only one candidate from the Opposition to create a daunting challenge for the BJP.

Sources say the SP, BSP, Congress, and RLD have almost arrived at the seat-sharing agreement. This is a conventional formula, which ensures seats for the winning candidate and for those who are on the second position. According to this formula, the Congress might get eight seats. In the last elections, the party had won Raebareli and Amethi seats and had come second on six other seats. In 2009, the Congress had won 22 seats. Though many Congress leaders feel that the proposal of eight seats is not what they had hoped for, at the end of the day, the party will have to accept it.

According to the same formula, the RLD might get three seats, all of which will be in western UP. According to sources, Ajit Singh’s son Jayant Chaudhary will get the Mathura seat, from where Hema Malini is currently the MP. In the byelections, the RLD had bagged Kairana, so the seat will go to the party. Apart from that, Ajit Singh’s conventional seat — Baghpat — will also be in his kitty. As per the formula, the SP will get 36 seats, and the BSP will get 34 — this, because the SP had won five seats in the last elections and had come second on 31 seats, whereas the BSP had come second on 34 seats. The buzz is that Akhilesh Yadav might give a couple of seats from his quota to the BSP.

AJIT SINGH’S NEXT MOVE

There’s growing suspense over the next move of the RLD’s Ajit Singh. There is news that along with the SP, BSP, and Congress, he is talking to the BJP as well. If the Mahagathbandhan offers him two or three seats, he might consider the BJP’s offer, which, sources say, is of five seats. This must be noted that the RLD has performed the best only with the BJP.

In 2009, the RLD had fought along with the BJP and won five seats. In 2014, the RLD fought in alliance with the Congress and had lost all seats. The truth is that the caste equation in western UP is different and the RLD’s chances will be better if it goes with the BJP. The Jats and other Hindu votes are expected to polarise in favour of the RLD and BJP. On the other hand, if the RLD goes with the secular alliance, it will affect the Jat votes. Though this time, the Jat and Jatav are expected to vote together. And that is why Ajit Singh is in a dilemma.

MAYAWATI weighs options

After a long gap, there are chances that Mayawati might fight the Lok Sabha Elections this time. She had fought from the Akbarpur seat in 2004. This must be noted that as of now, she is not a member of any House of Parliament. In 2012, when her party lost the elections and she had to resign from the CM post, she had joined the Rajya Sabha, only to resign in September 2017. So, she is no more a member of any House of Parliament or any legislative house. Now, her party is projecting her as the PM candidate for the next Lok Sabha Elections. The BSP has set a target to win at least 50 seats in different States along with UP by forging alliances with different parties. This is to be seen on how many seats the BSP will fight and how many seats it will win. But this is a fact that if there’s hung Parliament after elections and a leader of a small party becomes the contender for the PM post, then the first requirement will be for him/her to be a member of any of the Houses of Parliament. That is why there is speculation that Mayawati could fight the LS polls this time.

Mayawati had earlier fought from Bijnor, Haraura, Akbarpur, and Haridwar (earlier a part of UP). This time also, she might choose a seat from western UP, where her party has a strong base. When she had fought from Akbarpur, she won 44 per cent votes. After delimitation, the name of the seat has been changed to Ambedkar Nagar. This is a general seat and is said to be Mayawati’s first choice. Her other preference is Nagina, where the BSP had come third in the last elections.

WILL PRIYANKA contest?

Yet again, there is speculation that Priyanka Vadra will fight the Lok Sabha Elections from Raebareli. Since Sonia Gandhi has not been keeping well for the past few years, people say Priyanka might be roped in from her mother’s seat. Then there are some who say Rahul Gandhi might change his seat and will fight from Raebareli. In this scenario, the question that arises is: Will Priyanka then fight from her brother’s seat? According to another buzz, Priyanka could be the joint candidate of the BSP, SP, and Congress from Varanasi. The last time around, Arvind Kejriwal had fought from this seat. No big leader has wanted to fight from this seat. Neither the SP nor BSP wants to go up against PM Narendra Modi. All parties are trying to throw their ball in another’s court. If Priyanka is fielded from Varanasi, the elections will be very interesting. But this might also jeopardise Rahul’s political career.

CONGRESS TAKES INITIATIVE

The Congress is trying to tie up with other parties in the three States where elections are scheduled at the end of this year. When the leaders of these States met Rahul, they discussed several issues and a consensus was reached over the alliance policy. Though, the President of Rajasthan Congress doesn’t want any alliance, claiming they will win on their own, in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, party leaders want alliances. In Chhattisgarh, Mayawati and Ajit Jogi have already talked about a tie-up. However, the door is still open for the Congress. If the Congress wants an alliance, it will have to leave almost half the seats. The Congress wants to go into an alliance with the BSP in MP, but this would be possible only when there’s a package deal for both States.

Writer: Hari Shankar Vyas

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The hefty five billion dollar fine that EU imposed on Google on charges of anti-competitive practices will make little difference.

A five billion dollar fine that the European Commission imposed on Google on anti-competitive behaviour is just a drop in the ocean for the Silicon Valley giant. The technology company’s parent Alphabet announced that its annual revenues crossed $110 billion last year. Of course, Google will fight this fine, unprecedented in its scale, because of how it behaves with its mobile operating system Android. The allegations are very similar to those charged against Microsoft over two decades ago when it dominated the web browser space with Internet Explorer. Remember that? The fines and punishment hardly impacted Microsoft and the same is likely to happen to Google. But while Google has kept relatively quiet, the scandals surrounding Facebook haven’t gone away. Recently, Mark Zuckerberg said that he won’t crack down on Holocaust denying groups. This, after the Cambridge Analytica scandal where Facebook user data was compromised by a third-party. It appears that technology giants, which have disrupted traditional information sources, are not being responsible. They have allowed fake information to flourish; they have enabled hate groups like never before; and by swallowing up advertising revenue they have permanently compromised reliable information sources, such as newspapers. Yet, they have democratised information and challenged the sources of that information. But should they do more to mitigate fake news and also be more responsible with their market behaviour? Yes.

For far too long, technology has been the wild west in the name of technology and better features. Technology companies have gotten away with irresponsible behaviour. Their actions have killed competition and made many subservient to technology on the back of getting things for free. User data is the next goldmine that all sorts of technology companies and service providers want to mine. Your information and mine is up for sale, acquired without our explicit consent. There needs to be more oversight by administrators across the world. Nobody is arguing for a Chinese style leash and firewall — information should be available to everyone — but that information cannot be wrong. Companies should be allowed to thrive in this ecosystem. At the end of the day, technology should not help humankind not be something that takes over everything. Technology for technology’s sake is not the solution. The European Union’s fine on Google while admirable will do little to change the situation. Google and their services as well as Facebook are embedded in most of our lives and a fine and slap on the wrist will not change that.

Writer:  Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

No matter what the actual words uttered by Rahul were, it is clear that he was referring to Congress’ legacy as a party that has always put the community first.

While hosting a number of Muslim intellectuals, Congress president Rahul Gandhi was reported by Urdu daily, Inquilab to have stated: “Yes, Congress is a Muslim party”, which the Congress has vehemently denied but the newspaper stands by. What is not in question, however, is the party lending support to the setting up of Darul Qazas in every district as proposed by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Earlier, the Congress had refused to support the passage of the Bill (already passed by the Lok Sabha) to prohibit instant triple talaq. The Congress leaders must have assessed that such support would upset many Muslim men.

The provisions of minority rights as enshrined in Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution belong to the same species. It is reassuring that a full Bench of the Supreme Court is currently hearing a case on this subject. Thus, it is to be hoped that the stand taken, to begin with, by former Solicitor General, Harish Salve, wherein those minority educational institutions, which receive special aid from the Government, should cease to have reserved seats on religious lines, would be accepted by the Supreme Court.

It is not widely known that Articles 29 and 30 owe their origin to communalism. The Constituent Assembly was elected in January 1946.  On December 13 of the same year, Jawaharlal Nehru, as the head of the interim Government, moved what was called an Objective Resolution in order to appease the Muslim League, hoping that it would not press for Partition. As it happened, the endeavor to appease the League failed and the country was divided.

It will be useful to recall that the Constituent Assembly had been elected on the basis of Muslim constituencies (then called separate electorate) and 85 percent of the voters had voted for the League whose single-point manifesto then was Partition. Evidently, all Muslims in the Assembly were beneficiaries of this 85 per cent vote. What is extraordinary is that the Objective Resolution and the resulting Articles continued to be debated as if nothing happened on August 15, 1947.

In other words, what was proposed to placate the League and thereby avert the Partition, was enshrined in the Constitution despite the creation of Pakistan. In the words of Jawaharlal Nehru, spoken in the Assembly on November 8, 1948, “Nearly two years ago, we met in this hall and on that solemn occasion it was my high privilege to move a resolution which has come to be known as the Objective Resolution… It tried to embody the spirit that lay behind the Indian people at the time. It is difficult to maintain the spirit of a nation or a people at a high level all the time… Nevertheless, I hope that it is in that spirit that we have to approach the framing of this Constitution … always using that resolution as the yard measure with which to test every clause and phrase of this Constitution.” (Pages 317-318, Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII 1999.)

Articles 29 and 30 were described in the resolution as safeguards provided for the minorities. In the process, considerable discrimination was introduced into the educational system. A school is either run by a Government or aided by a State. In either case, the Government has the final say in the policies of the school.  If, however, a school happens to be run by the members of a minority, the Government does not interfere. In effect, schools run by Hindus either accept Government aid and face interference or abstain from the aid. In spite of this background, the Constituent Assembly on November 9, 1948, patiently heard ZH Lari, a Muslim Leaguer from Uttar Pradesh, who got elected on a pro-Partition ticket.

While pleading for reservation as well as special rights for Muslims, Lari said, “We never said that Muslims in these parts are going to migrate to Pakistan. We are the children of the soil and as such we claim the rights of citizens of India.” Vishwambhar Dayalu Tripathi, another member, shot back: “What did your leaders do in Pakistan?”

Prof KT Shah, yet another member, tried to insist that no expenditure on any private institution should be defrayed from the public purse. Yet, Nehru and his Government ignored the exhortations, and went on to enshrine in the Constitution financial burdens which most States are now finding difficult to bear…For the simple reason that the combination of a subsidy and freedom of management has led to the proliferation of madrasas.”

The Nehru Government was anxious to retrieve the Mohajirs who had landed in Karachi. To take the example of Benares weavers, Nehru’s friend Sri Prakasa, who was then the High Commissioner, said to them, “Why have you come here? No one wants you here. Do get back home. Why do you want to destroy my city? It is you who have made it famous in the world.” I immediately used to issue permits to them to go back, so he wrote in his book, Pakistan: Birth and Early Days.

Syama Prasad Mookerjee saw the riots in East Pakistan as part of a deliberate and cold-blooded plan to exterminate or expel the minorities from East Pakistan. It is this conviction that made Mookerjee suggest an exchange of population. Nehru rejected this suggestion out of hand. As recorded in his Selected Speeches, he went on to explain: “An exchange of population is something which we have opposed all along. It is something which I consider not only undesirable but also not feasible.”

In his book, Government from Inside, NV Gadgil, a senior member of the Nehru Cabinet wrote: “I have already described how systematically Pakistan drove out its Hindus and how they encouraged Bengali Muslims to enter and occupy some areas in Assam. The Indian Government took no notice of these. On the other hand, Nehru was greatly annoyed when once Vallabhbhai suggested mutual exchange of Hindu and Muslim populations and a proportional division of land between India and Pakistan. But one has to confess that such an exchange would have been beneficial in the long run.”

The Indian Muslim remained, on the whole, aloof from the mainstream of Indian life after the Partition, but in almost all cities, communal Muslim organisations continued their poisonous propaganda. Thousands of Muslims, who had gone to Pakistan, returned and were given back their properties.

The Hindus received no such justice. Indira Gandhi was comparatively less partial. Nevertheless, at the Shimla conference with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, she allowed the release of 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war to return scot-free; although the Indians were told that former Pakistan Prime Minister Bhutto had verbally promised to make the Line of Control in Jammu & Kashmir the permanent frontier between the two countries so that the Kashmir issue stands settled for all time.

Rajiv Gandhi was more confused but no less a player of communal politics. In 1981, the Madhya Pradesh High Court awarded alimony to a long-divorced Shah Bano. In 1985, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed her former husband’s appeal and endorsed the alimony. However, the Prime Minister, exhorted by the Muslim clergy, nullified the apex court judgement by having the Muslim Women Act 1986 passed by Parliament. Thus, the clergy was appeased but what about justice to a poor widow?

UPA Chairperson and former Congress chief  Sonia Gandhi was consistently biased and her nominee Prime Minister Manmohan Singh not only appointed several committees for alleviating the Muslim community’s socio-economic conditions but also promised it the first 15 percent of the country’s resources. To be fair to Congress chief Rahul Gandhi, he is no more to blame than to say that he has been loyal to his long-set family and party legacy.

Writer: Prafull Goradia

Courtesy: The Pioneer

As the Communist Party cannot rule without creating resentment, Jinping’s wish to make China a global power may not only land him in trouble, but might bring China to a dead-end.

China is a big country, a powerful state, but a nervous nation. Beijing is today able to rule far beyond its borders; a seemingly-insignificant incident: During the World Cup semi final between France and Belgium in Moscow, a French man shared his photos holding a Tibetan flag. Hugues Picon, the activist, was immediately arrested and kept in police custody and barred from entering the stadium for the final. He was probably unaware of the length of Beijing’s arm. However, China’s extended power is bound to create more and more problems for President Xi Jinping in the future. The Communist Party in Beijing can’t rule the world without creating resentment all-over. A commentator in the South China Morning Post pointed to a serious issue confronting the Middle Kingdom: “China needs to heed overseas unease as it moves to global centre-stage.”

Observers are concerned over the growth of Chinese nationalist pride and influence abroad. The Hong Kong paper remarked: “China must be wary of nationalist pride and its visions of taking global centre-stage triggering unease among its neighbours.” In a new book, China’s Change: The Greatest Show On Earth, Hugh Peyman, an old China watcher, questions: Has China got it right? Ultimately, Peyman believes that Deng Xiaoping’s approach will continue to serve the country well, and ‘as long as China keeps changing, it will find its way’. That is probably where the fate of China will be decided.

But can China change and become a state accepting the global rules of behaviour?  Unfortunately during the past five years, China has changed but for the worse, ignoring or antagonising its own periphery (Tibet, Xinjiang, et al), as well as its neighbourhood. The recent campaign to forcibly assimilate ethnic Uyghurs in Xinjiang in order to erase nationalist sentiment and create an Islam with socialist characteristics is a case in point. James Dorsey, a senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore, wrote that the move is bound to fail because it “ignores lessons learnt not only from recent Chinese history but also the experience of others.”

Referring to the Belt and Road Initiative, Dorsey added: “In what amounts to an attempt to square a circle, China is trying to reconcile the free flow of ideas inherent to open borders, trade and travel with an effort to fully control the hearts and minds of its population.” At the same time, inside censorship shows that not all is under control. The South China Morning Post observed: “China’s censors are scrambling to control the narrative about the trade war with the US by giving the media a list of dos and don’ts when reporting on the topic.”

Knowledgeable sources in the Chinese media told the newspaper that they had been told “not to over-report the trade war with US and be extremely careful about linking the trade war to stock market falls, the depreciation of the yuan or economic weakness to avoid spreading panic.” Is it possible to tightly manage everything and everyone? But presently control is extremely well-organised. According to Chinascope, a first batch of graduate students recently received Master’s degrees in United Front (UF) studies at the Central Institute of Socialism in Shandong University, the Chinese Communist Party’s training and education facility for its cadres. Chinascope said: “Since its launch in 2015, the program has recruited 38 doctoral and 50 masters degree students.” The UF is an organisation to carry out the party’s revolutionary and political campaigns not only in places like Tibet, Xinjiang or Taiwan, but also abroad.

The UF was introduced during the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution as the soft hand of the party. According to the Jamestown Foundation: “The United Front Work Department is the department of the CCP charged with consolidating support for Party policies among non-CCP members, including among individuals of Chinese descent overseas. It is has long been a key, albeit well concealed, element of the CCP’s foreign policy.” The last issue of the China Brief of the Jamestown Foundation takes the case of Mongolia: “Sinified religion has a role to play in Xi’s elevation of the UF into a foreign policy tool.”

It studied the case of the Jebtsundamba Hutugtu’s succession process: “It is perceived as a challenge the CCP’s neo-imperial reincarnation management system, which will undergo a major test when it comes to the selection of the next Dalai Lama reincarnation.” The Jebtsundamba is the equivalent of the Dalai Lama in Mongolia. The study shows that some unreported events in Mongolia “reveal attempts to cultivate senior lamas and exploit internal divisions to counter Dharamsala influence and earn global Buddhist ‘discourse power’.” Chinese organisations would like to compete with India for the lead of the Buddhist movement worldwide. The UF has considerably extended its influence under Xi, particularly by absorbing into the UF Department, the State Administration of Religious Affairs, a Government organisation which implements China’s religious policy. At the same time, Internet surveillance has tremendously expanded overseas, thanks to a host of new technologies.

Chinascope reported that Zhongkedianji Beijing Technology, a big data firm in Beijing, admitted to have developed a software called ‘junquan yuqun’; it is capable of detecting more than 8,000 ‘sensitive’ websites in Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan: “In addition, it has established 18,000 information outlets in China which can monitor news, forums, blogs, microblogs, pictures, and videos. It can even collect information in 53 languages including English, French, Spanish, and the languages of ethnic minorities in China.” The company’s website said that the surveillance system can “carry out public opinion analyses, information warnings, and hot spot analyses. It can collect negative public opinion, public opinion trends, briefings, analyses, forwarded information, and do statistical analyses for the Government. It can monitor news, forums, blogs, Weibo, pictures, videos.”

Surveillance also applies to the Chinese expats. Bilahari Kausikan, Singapore’s former permanent secretary for Foreign Affairs, recently told a forum in Singapore: “In plain language, what this means is that overseas Chinese should be persuaded, induced, or in extremis, coerced, into accepting allegiance to China as at least part of their identity.” It is quite frightening. But ultimately, this will bring China to a dead-end. Too many foes will be unmanageable, even for a big power. Will Xi get the message before it is too late?

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

Writer: Claude Arpi

Courtesy: The Pioneer