The government has started supplying electricity to every village in the country, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced, a big achievement that now shifts country’s attention towards improving the quality of electricity supply to connect every household to the grid.

Leisang in the hills of Manipur became the 597,464th and the last census village in India to get connected to the electricity grid of the country. This is a remarkable achievement and although work had been going on over the last two decades at a constant pace, it must be said that the Narendra Modi Government had the toughest challenge to connect some of India’s remotest and furthest habitations. This achievement should not be mocked. While some are making a hullabaloo over a supposed image by the US Space agency NASA, the fact is that anybody, who travelled on a night flight over India back in the early-2000’s, could easily tell the difference that the past two decades have made. Far from flying over the heart of darkness, if one caught a flight between Chennai and Delhi, today you can look down from a window seat and see several patches of light where earlier there were none. It has been pointed out, repeatedly one must add, by those pathologically opposed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi that this achievement does not mean that every household has electricity. Which is something the Government realises. Last October, it emerged that almost 36.8 million rural homes did not have access to any form of electricity in India. Since then, according to Government data, only 13 per cent of those homes have been electrified in the last few months. But 30 million homes remain to be electrified and that is not all. Across the country, several million homes, even in urban areas, do not have access to guaranteed 24×7 power. So much so that whole industries have popped up in India, trying to cover the infrastructure gap — inverters and generators.

This challenge is being tackled by the Government and Narendra Modi promised last October that he intends to have electricity in 40 million homes unconnected to the grid by March 2019 under the Saubhagya scheme, which is as ambitious as the very successful ‘Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana’ and ‘UJALA’ schemes that provided cooking gas and LED lights across the country. However, in meeting the challenge while sticking to our emissions commitments made at global forums will require juggling the needs to lifting millions of Indians out of extreme poverty along with the needs of the planet. While India has taken massive steps towards renewable energy, much of the additional energy demanded in bringing millions of new households into the grid will be through thermal energy generated by coal which will belch billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This will lead India down a tightrope because given vast swathes of low-lying areas as well as suffering extreme weather phenomena, India will be heavily affected by global warming. We do need to do our utmost to ensure that every single Indian has access to electricity as the 21st century heads into its third decade. Doing that while ensuring that the world will survive as an habitable planet into the twenty-second century will be a major challenge.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

French President Macron on Wednesday called on the United States not to ditch a nuclear deal with Iran until a broader international accord is reached that states all remaining U.S. and European concerns about Iran.

The French President received a three-minute standing ovation as he arrived in the chamber in Washington, DC on Wednesday, yet his speech was critical of President Donald Trump’s America First agenda.

He expressed doubt that Trump would stay in the nuclear deal and warned the West not to “repeat past mistakes” in the Middle East.

Saving the Iran deal has been high on the agenda of Macron’s visit, and he has presented Trump with a supplementary pact that would further limit Iran’s development of ballistic missiles and curb its military role in the region.

France, the US as well as Russia, Germany, China, the UK and the European Union are signatories to the agreement with Iran.

“My view — I don’t know what your President will decide — is that he will get rid of this deal on his own, for domestic reasons,” Macron said.

In an address to the US Congress earlier in the day, Macron said while the 2015 nuclear agreement “may not address all concerns”, the parties to the deal “should not abandon it without having something more substantial instead”.

“We signed it at the initiative of the United States. We signed it — both the United States and France. That is why we cannot say we should get rid of it like that.”

Macron added, “What we decided, together with your President, is that we can work on a more comprehensive deal addressing all these concerns.”

While declaring France’s position to stay with the Iran deal, Macron sought to allay the concerns of Trump and his conservative allies, declaring, “Iran shall never possess any nuclear weapon. Not now, not in five years, not in 10 years, never.”

Macron said France will not leave the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and pushed for a comprehensive agreement with Tehran to address the US concerns.

In his speech, Macron also made a pointed criticism of “isolationism, withdrawal and isolationism”, adding that the US “invented multilateralism”.

“It can be tempting to us as a temporary to remedy to our fears,” he said.

“But closing the door to the world will not stop the evolution of the world. It will only inflame the fears of our citizens. We have to keep our eyes wide open to the new risks right in front of us,” he added.

Since Trump came to office in January 2017, he has taken several steps to block the nuclear deal.

In October, he refused to certify that Iran is living up to the accord.

He also targeted several Iranian businesses and individuals with new sanctions. On January 12, Trump announced he was waiving the US sanctions for the “last time”.

He said if his demands are not met within 120 days, the US would withdraw from the deal. The deadline is on May 12, although he has hinted that the US could cut loose before that date.

Trump also appointed several members of his cabinet who oppose the nuclear deal, including Mike Pompeo, the incoming secretary of state, and John Bolton, the national security adviser.

Writer: Agencies

Courtesy: The Pioneer

During the Sino-Indian informal summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping suggested a new protocol to Prime minister Modi in response to his call for border peace. President Xi suggested that the agenda will be formulated by China and its disclosure would be left to India.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘informal summit’ with Chinese President Xi Jinping from April 27 to April 28 in Wuhan city is perhaps meant to reduce the tangible Chinese military pressure, since the Doklam face-off, on the 3,488 km disputed border (Line of Actual Control). Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj said, “We underlined that maintaining peace and tranquillity in the India-China border areas is an essential pre-requisite for the smooth development of bilateral ties.”

Under the rubric of strategic communications, the two leaders are expected to concentrate on each other’s core concerns. Modi will seek to diffuse the risen temperature at the border, which has enormous potential for negative military consequences for India. Another 2013 Depsang incursion or worse, with a year left for India’s General Elections, would impact negatively on the Modi Government.

Both Modi and Xi know that the LAC is India’s Achilles heel. Xi, on the other hand, would desire that India completely desist from the official patronage of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-exile including His Holiness’ visits to Arunachal Pradesh. Since India has sought the meeting, China, which is in a stronger negotiating position, would likely ask for cooperation and clarification on two other vital issues which have the potential to derail strategic communications. The first is about the perceived ganging up of India with the United States to stymie China’s Maritime Silk Road in the Indian Ocean Region.

Xi would be interested to know Modi’s assessment of the Indo-Pacific region, whether the Quadrilateral grouping (India, US, Japan and Australia) is being done as an alternative to China’s One Belt One Road. The other issue would be to start talks, possibly at a political level, on connectivity cooperation between the two nations. China wants India to make peace with Pakistan and join the One Belt One Road.

Being undertaken a month before, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit also to be held in China, Modi-Xi meeting cannot be business as usual; especially when the National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval, without prior knowledge of the external affairs ministry, had gone and sought the meeting.

The business, as usual, was left to India’s foreign and defence ministers, who were recently in China for pre-SCO summit meetings. They would have discussed bilateral geopolitical and defence issues and shared mutual concerns. Moreover, Niti Aayog vice chairman Rajiv Kumar too was in China for the Strategic and Economic Dialogue where threats to globalisation and protectionism, and enhanced bilateral trade were reportedly discussed.

Before we proceed with the military implication of Doklam which compelled Modi to seek an audience with Xi, two assertions by experts regarding the  Line of Actual Control (LAC) should be put into perspective. The first is by Army Chief General Bipin Rawat who has repeatedly said that he is prepared for a two-front war. Unlike the Air Force chief, Air Chief Marshal Birender Singh Dhanoa, who has consistently evaded this question by the media, General Rawat has, many a time, proffered this assessment without even asking. This is when the Air Force and not the Army would have to do the heavy lifting in a conflict with China.

Now, when India is seeking peace on the LAC, it appears that General Rawat either does not fully comprehend the adversary and the dynamics of conflict escalation that might ensue, or he has been making political statements. The former seems more likely. He appears to have misled the political bosses into believing that tactical muscle-flexing in Doklam and increased Army deployments post-Doklam would scare the Chinese off. Perhaps, he has done this unwittingly.

Having spent most of his career in counter-insurgency operations, he probably is not fully conversant with the Chinese military capabilities, strategy, modern war dynamics and most importantly, that China is not known to buckle under outside pressure. What China did in Doklam was a tactical retreat to win the war without fighting. That they have succeeded in it is obvious from the informal summit sought by India.

The other assertion is by the former National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon, who has maintained that the border with China has been peaceful since no shots have been fired there. Giving credit for this to the 1993 bilateral agreement which renamed the border as the LAC, he writes in his book, Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy, “The reference to the LAC would be unqualified, making it clear that it was the LAC at the time the agreement was signed that would be respected, and not some notional idea of where it was in 1959 or 1962.”

China, with admirable border management and relatively excellent war-fighting capabilities, has, instead of respecting the 1993 agreement, made use of the agreement to apply military pressure on India. Given that the LAC, unlike a border, is a military line which can be altered by force, the Chinese have since 1993, transgressed it, at will. If the LAC had not been formed, China would have hesitated to violate the disputed border (denoted by natural geographical features like mountains) so often. Realising the blunder wrought by the LAC construct, Modi had, in September 2014, during Xi’s India visit, publicly sought clarification on the LAC. China refused to do it.

The creation of the LAC has reduced the Indian Army to a policing force. It has been left to stop intrusions by the adversary (without resorting to violence) which, unlike them, does not stay perched on heights of 15,000 feet and above, but comes in vehicles looking for border gaps. To reduce a fighting force to policing duties undermines the soldiers’ morale no ends. Giving the choice of being posted at the military line with Pakistan, and that with China, soldiers would prefer the former.

Since Doklam, the ground situation on the LAC has worsened. The People’s Liberation Army while replacing border guards (akin to India’s paramilitary forces) has built additional military infrastructure and increased its presence on the LAC. This has compelled the Indian Army to substantially increase its soldiers on the LAC and to shift resources from other sectors to the China front. This has denuded other vital sectors of necessary capabilities.

Worse, the Indian Army, as admitted by the Army senior brass to the media, has, at best, counter-attack capabilities against China. These are tactical or battle fighting, rather than war or campaign fighting capabilities. Instead of worrying about this, they are happily informing the nation that 1962 (when the focus was on land battles) would not be repeated, as if a conflict in 2018 would be the same as what it was then.

Modi, however, has taken upon himself to ensure peace at the border. A possible code of conduct, which was suggested by China in response to Modi’s call to define the LAC, or some other mechanism for border peace, could be in the offing. Its substance would likely be dictated by China, while the timing of its disclosure would probably be left to India.

(The writer is editor FORCE newsmagazine)

Writer: The Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

An informal meet between Modi and Premier Xi is giving them an opportunity for a face-to-face discussion on various issues to reboot Sino-Indian ties.

The proposed ‘informal’ over-the-table talks between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese Premier Xi Jinping later this week, months before the much-awaited Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit where the two leaders were otherwise expected to come face-to-face, marks a departure from the routine in Sino-Indian relations and signals the turning of a new chapter in the bilateral relationship. Barring a few meetings on the sidelines of various multilateral fora, this full-fledged meeting or summit holds the promise of great opportunity for the two leaders to address mounting discontent on both sides ever since the prolonged Doklam stand-off. There is no better way of allaying apprehensions and handling a fragile relationship better than doing it in person.

Nevertheless, behind such diplomatic maneuvers are many behind-the-scene developments that led to breaking the deadlock. It is the cumulative work of both External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and her Chinese counterpart Wang Yi both of whom who did a stellar job in laying the groundwork for the visit to fructify. It also needs to be said that increasingly complex global developments have led the two countries to pull back from the brink of continuing animosity and play up the advantages of cooperation. Having understood the consequences of a trade deficit with the US, both Beijing and New Delhi have a vested interest in drawing closer to each other. An expansionist and ambitious China under Xi wants to fulfill the Middle Kingdom’s eternal aspiration of being a Great Power and thus emerge as a countervailing force to the US; to that end, it certainly does not want India in America’s arms. India too has its concerns, most crucial among them being its war against terrorism, for which Chinese support is vital.

However, it will be erroneous for New Delhi to fall for Beijing’s sweet-talk. At the diplomatic level, commitments to settle border disputes, resumption of the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra and an enhanced role for India in the Belt and Road initiative all sound promising. But for Modi and Xi to emerge from the summit with a win-win situation, Beijing needs to crack down hard on its all-weather ally Pakistan and the terror directed against India emanating from its territory. On this front, in a bid to maintain cordial relations with Islamabad, China has incurred New Delhi’s displeasure for failing to act. Beijing’s track record says it all: China has taken it upon itself to shield Pakistan and its terror factories. Time and again it failed to endorse India’s bid to impose a ban on the activities of Masood Azhar and has also consistently been stalling India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group. This at a time when the China has itself been a victim of terrorism in the Muslim-dominated northwestern province of Xinjiang. As a longstanding victim of jihadi terrorism, India must iterate that Beijing’s support for its counter-terrorism measures is non-negotiable. Depending on how that goes, New Delhi too can show flexibility on China’s long-pending demand to ink the Treaty for Good Neighborly and Friendly Cooperation between the two countries. There can be no better cure to resolve disagreements and cement ties than bilateral talks. But our optimism must be tempered by sober, rational assessments of the pros and cons of dealing with an adversary whom we don’t want as an enemy right now.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Since the formation of Uttarakhand, declaring Gairsain as the capital as always been in question. Swagata Sinha Roy and DK Budakoti speculate that this demand is linked with the public and political ethos of the state.

The ongoing agitation in the State of Uttarakhand for a permanent capital in the small hill town of Gairsain in the interiors of Chamoli district, is once again making news. The issue of permanent capital at Gairsain was proposed by regional political outfits and social activists much before the formation of the State in November 9, 2000.

However, Dehradun was made the temporary capital as a permanent one was not mentioned when the Bill for the State formation was passed in the Parliament.

The history of the state formation has its roots in the identity of local people and the issue of development. Now, despite almost 18 years of State formation, the issue of development, employment and migration have not been addressed; in fact, they have only been aggravated over the years.

The issue of migration has been a long on-going matter with the academia and in the development NGOs sector. Today, the Government recognises the seriousness of the issue and Government website mentions that, “Migration from rural areas in Uttarakhand is a serious problem with a comparison between 2001 and 2011 Census data showing a very slow decadal growth of population in most of the mountain districts of the State.

An absolute decline in the population of Almora and Pauri Garhwal districts between 2001 and 2011 points towards a massive out flux of people from many hill regions of the State. The pace of out-migration is such that many of the villages are left with a population in double digits.

Data also points towards a high rate of decadal increase in population in districts like Dehradun, Udham Singh Nagar, Nainital and Haridwar while this is negative in Pauri and Almora districts and abnormally low decadal increase in Tehri, Bageshwar, Chamoli, Rudraprayag and Pithoragarh districts.”

This shows that the Government of Uttarakhand is apprised of the situation and has formed the Uttarakhand Rural Development and Migration Commission. The official website also mentions the mandate of the Commission that, “the Uttarakhand Government has constituted the Rural Development and Migration Commission in August 2017, to examine all aspects of the problem, evolve a vision for the focused development of the rural areas of the State; advice the Government on multi-sectoral development at the grassroots levels which would aggregate at the district and state levels and also submit recommendations to the Government on various other related matters.”

Today, local political and social activists and general populace of the hills feel that the formation of the State has not been fruitful as expected and one of the reasons is

having Dehradun as a temporary capital of the State. Although when the BJP and Congress were in Opposition, they paid lip service to make Gairsain the permanent capital of the State.

Gairsain as a permanent capital  is not an emotional issue but a rational one, as the premise is based on the paradigm that a capital in the interiors will usher in development in the hills.

A capital in the interior hill area will make the political leadership and bureaucracy sensitive to the hardship faced by the people, thereby improve basic amenities, viz. water, electricity, health and education.

With the shifting of political centre and the official machinery, the related infrastructure will be planned in the area leading to development through, what is called in development and economic theory, as the ‘trickling down effect’.

Thus, the whole agitation and campaign is based on the premise that a capital in the interiors will usher in development of the ‘State Capital Region’  (SCR) and subsequently the development of the State at large, particularly the hill regions.

(The writers are freelance commentators)

Writer: Swagata Sinha Roy and DK Budakoti

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Apart from so many political union and varied society in India that were corrupting the head of the nation, Prime Minister Modi has come up clean to assault all political storms and ensure the success of his vision.

I don’t have any love for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But as an Indian who is committed to safeguarding and promoting the values of the Indian Constitution, I am keen to support the positive initiatives of the Prime Minister.

In a society, which is highly divisive, politically hot and diverse in different aspects, it is nothing but natural to villainise the head of the nation. Modi is known to have weathered these political storms and has come out clean to ensure the successful staging of his visionary schemes and policies.

Somewhere he might have slipped inadvertently but that is common to any human being. however, in the overall perspective, it is clear that Modi is standing tall in promoting the welfare of India and its citizens. According to the Prime Minister’s official website, he had travelled to nearly 70 countries and  has spend around Rs 250 crore in the last four and half years.

What did he bring in from these foreign visits? He made sure that India becomes a nation to be watched seriously by the entire world.

He showcased the strengths of India, pursued the international countries to lend support to counter the terrorists operating in foreign soils against India, brought in a huge capital, technology and innovative ideas to transform the country.

Indeed India is transforming at a rapid speed and the world is watching keenly. Modi’s foreign visits have reformed and transformed the Indian economy and society in a massive way. It needs guts of steel to counter the mammoth Chinese strength in the Asian continent and wider will to play on the front foot with the world as the stage. In both ways, the Modi Government has achieved quite remarkably.

Pakistan was sending terrorists across the border and playing cricket and simultaneously distributing sweets on Holi and Diwali. Modi made sure that multi-tricked Pakistan is exposed. He smartly succeeded in bringing out the evil designs of Pakistan. The United States has held the funds for terrorists operating against India. It has also blocked the funds for Pakistan.

A famous pro Indian Republican Larry Pressler  in his book Neighbours in Arms: An American Senator’s Quest for Disarmament in a Nuclear Subcontinent  gives a clear picture of the US’s actions against these terrorist networks operating from Pakistan. He thanks US President Donald Trump for openly branding Pakistan as a terrorist state and creating existential trouble for terrorist groups like the Hizbul Mujahideen, Haqqani Network, the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba etc.

The Modi Government has successfully catalysed people like Larry Pressler and networks like pro-India lobbies to put a fullstop to the troubles coming across the borders.

For many years, India has been talking about self-sufficiency in defence productions. But Modi Government is making sure that the talk is turned into action. Dreams floated in the air for ages are now turning into reality.

Defence manufacturing is taking the right shape and India may achieve export status in the next 10 years. This was possible through right persuasion and collaboration of foreign companies to start manufacturing defence hubs in India.

The recent Defence Expo 2018 held at Thiruvidanthai near Chennai saw a record number of foreign companies showing interests in starting defence manufacturing in India. By 2025, India is expected to produce military goods and services worth Rs 1.7 lakh crore.

World renowed defence equipment manufacturing companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing of the United States, Saab (Sweden), Airbus, Dassault Aviation (France), Rosoboronexport, United Shipbuilding Corporation (Russia), BAE Systems (United Kingdom), Sibat (Israel), Wartsila (Finland) and Rohde and Schwarz (Germany) are among the 154 foreign participating companies.

With Japan, India has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to send three lakh youths to get on-job training in the next three years. This is a major breakthrough to providing employment opportunities for job starved Indian population. The excess capital and human resources of Japan and India will lead to the prosperity of both nations.

In all ways, Narendra Modi’s charisma is working to the advantage of India. He has brought in huge foreign capital. It has doubled to over $60 billion in the last four years.

The Prime Minister has increased the clout of India widely around the world. From the President of United States to the Queen of England to the Prime Minister of tiny island Fiji, every head of the State around the world salutes India under the leadership of  Narendra Modi.

Now, the entire nation must rally behind the Government to ensure prosperity, peace and progress for all, leaving the petty politics behind. No internal problem should block our external progress.

(The author is Dean at Nehru Memorial College, Trichy)

Writer: A Prabaharan

Courtesy: The Pioneer

US and Russian ties have reached treacherous lows. However, if Trump wishes to make things better with Russia, Nikki Haley needs to go.

The fiery US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, seems to have crossed swords with her boss in the White House. US President Donald Trump is said to have taken to shouting at the television whenever he sees her making statements.

Last weekend, the spat flew spectacularly into the open when Trump undercut Haley over her claims that the White House was about to impose new sanctions on Russia. Trump’s blood pressure reportedly surged with rage at her apparent uppityness to make up policy on the hoof.

Next day, the Trump Administration pointedly announced it was holding off on new sanctions against Moscow. Haley was embarrassingly left hanging out to dry. A senior Trump aide told the US media that the UN Ambassador had gotten ‘confused’. Haley then hit back at the slight, saying she “doesn’t get confused”.

There seems little doubt that the former South Carolina Governor, who was once such a rising star in Team Trump, has now fallen out of favour with the President.

Such rapid reversal in fortune is par for the course for those who work for Trump. Rex Tillerson, HR McMaster, and many other senior members of his Administration have all been ditched by the President at a moment’s notice, usually via his Twitter feed. Haley would likewise be advised to watch her back. Any day, she might find herself out of a job.

Ever since she was appointed as Envoy to the UN, 46-year-old Haley has gained an unenviable reputation of being something of firebrand. She has delighted the hawkish wing on Capitol Hill with her belligerent tirades against Iran, North Korea and Russia. For a while too, Trump seemed to think she was doing ‘a great job’.

But lately, her bravura performances at the UN Security Council have apparently rankled Trump for displaying a little too much self-importance and ambition. The word is that the President — a person with excessive egotism — views Haley as being a little too big for her boots, who harbours secret plans to one day occupy the White House.

The New York Times this week reported on growing jealousies and insecurities between the President and his UN Ambassador. Trump is wary that Haley’s grandstanding at the UN is more about advancing her political reputation among the Republican Party with a view to launch a run for the presidency in 2020.

There is even talk of Haley teaming up with the current US Vice President Mike Pence for the presidential ticket. Trump has his eye on being re-elected, and not too pleased with the conjecture about Haley striving to become the first female President.

Apart from grubby political jealousies and infighting could there be anything more significant in the dimming star of Nikki Haley?

Trump’s abrupt intervention to scotch the latest round of sanctions against Russia may indicate a pragmatic realisation that relations between Washington and Moscow are sliding much too dangerously. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently warned of dire deterioration in bilateral relations to the worst years of the old Cold War.

Russia’s Envoy to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia— Haley’s counterpart — has also deplored that the way things are unraveling, a war between the US and Russia cannot be ruled out. The worst flashpoint seems to be in Syria where Russian troops are based, especially after Trump ordered a barrage of the country with over 100 missiles last weekend.

That barrage was on the back of a dubious chemical weapons incident which the President blamed on the Syrian Government forces and their Russian ally. Syria and Russia have dismissed the claims, saying the incident was a premeditated provocation carried out by Western-backed militants and their media associates in the so-called White Helmets.

Moscow has reportedly expressed grave concerns to the Trump Administration that the situation in Syria is at risk of escalating into a full-blown war between the US and Russia. It seems senior officials within the Trump Administration are also acutely aware of the risk. US Secretary of Defence James Mattis reportedly cautioned Trump to limit the air strikes and to avoid Syrian and Russian casualties.

Perhaps too, Trump has been given pause for thought over the initial allegations of Syrian and Russian complicity in the chemical weapon incident in Douma on April 7.

A growing number of Western journalists and politicians are questioning the authenticity of claims of an atrocity, and are openly saying that it was a “false flag” aimed at provoking the US, British and French military strikes. This is exactly what Russia had been warning of in the lead up to the strikes on April 14.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is reportedly still willing to give Trump a chance to try to normalise relations between Washington and Moscow.

That could be why Trump is increasingly exasperated by Nikki Haley. Her bellicose diatribes at the UN have plunged US-Russian relations into a bottomless pit.

While Trump has expressed, at times, a desire to improve relations with Putin, Haley has sounded the diametric opposite with her relentless hostility towards Russia. Evidently, Haley cannot think beyond a prism of Russophobia, which is not a constructive position for White House policy. She, after all, is supposed to be an Envoy for the President, not his policymaker.

Only days after being collared by Trump over Russian sanctions, Haley this week showed a marked change in tone at the UN concerning Russia. As 21st Century Wire reported, Haley appeared to be backtracking from her previous intransigent stance for blaming Russia over the Skripal poisoning affair in England.

No longer is Haley categorically claiming a Russian state assassination plot. She is now leaving open the possibility that Russia may have lost control of its nerve agents which got into wrong hands. It’s still a load of codswallop, but as 21st Century Wire points out, Haley is “hedging” her position and weakening her accusations against Russia.

Now, the question is: Has President Trump concluded that Nikki Haley is a liability, not an asset? Her Russophobia and political ambition seem to have overtaken her judgrment, and are precluding any chance of a normal relation between the US and Russia. In short, she is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Relations between the US and Russia have sunk to treacherous levels. Trump seems to have enough savvy to know that the downward dynamic has to stop before rock-bottom catastrophe hits.

Admittedly, US presidents are only figureheads when up against the deep State and long-term strategic planning. So, Trump may not be able to divert the underlying dangerous direction of relations that Washington seems hellbent on towards Russia. But if Trump stands to have any go at all at alleviating tensions with Russia, one thing is sure: Nikki Haley has to go.

Writer: Finian Cunningham

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Hindu voters will play a significant role in upcoming poll in Bangladesh. The whole credit will goes to the Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, if she will be able to restore the lost confidence of the minority, which is quite uncertain.
The most interesting part of the upcoming Parliamentary poll in Bangladesh, which will be keenly watched, is whether the minorities, especially the Hindus, will be able to muster enough courage to turn up at the voting centres to cast their votes or whether they will succumb to the coercive tactics of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)-Jamaat-e-Islami combine  and refrain from voting. And if they indeed go to vote, it will be interesting to see which party they finally vote for.

Hindu votes have suddenly become extremely crucial for this poll. Having suffered the most at the hands of the BNP-Jamaat combine for en bloc voting for the Awami League, the Hindus are uncertain about their future and are mortally terrified of becoming the targets of attack for voting the Awami League to power once again. Desperate and deliberate attempts are being made this time round by the Islamist alliance to disturb the safe and secure traditional Hindu vote-bank of the ruling party.

Fed on BNP-Jamaat’s consistent anti-Awami League campaign, the mindset of Bangladeshi Hindus has undergone a significant change in recent years, with a large section singing the praise of not only BNP supremo  Khaleda Zia but also of Jamatis, some of who are accused of committing gross crimes against humanity. BNP leaders are confident that if the elections are held in a free and fair manner, results will be quite close. Moreover, if Hindus boycott voting or if they vote for the BNP (even an insignificant number), it will swing results in their favour  because Parliamentary polls in Bangladesh, they say, are decided by a thin margin of two to four per cent votes and if this percentage of Hindu voters stay away from voting, it will ensure a BNP victory. In the recent Comilla Mayoral election, the Awami League candidate lost because a sizable percentage of the towns’ Hindu voters boycotted the poll in protest against the persecution of Hindus in neighbouring Brahmanbaria.

The irony is that with BNP and Jamaat having contributed handsomely to Bangladesh’s dwindling Hindu population (from 30 per cent in 1971 to a 10 per cent at present), the Hindus have never been as insecure as they are now. It is to win over Hindu voters that many Islamist party leaders have made solemn pledges not to persecute the minorities, especially the Hindus, if they are elected. This, of course, is against their undeclared agenda of ridding the country of all minorities through forced and silent migration to India. This agenda is a reflection of the Pakistani mindset which always sought non-Muslims not having any say in the country’s election politics.

In 2001, there were 123 constituencies where the percentage of Hindu voters varied between 20 per cent and 60 per cent. Today, that figure has dwindled to 82 constituencies where Hindus are still a determining factor in the outcome of elections. This drastic drop is largely due to the pogrom that the BNP-Jamaat combine had jointly carried out against the Hindus after the 2001 Parliamentary poll as retribution for not voting in their favour.

Surprisingly, the Awami League is saying and doing nothing to counter this psychological onslaught and to reassure its Hindu voters that it will stand by them and defeat the BNP-Jamaat’s communal political game plan. Another sinister campaign doing the rounds presently is that Sheikh Hasina is no longer in need of Hindu votes because with fundamentalist Hefajat-e-Islam’s (it has a large following  among Muslims) support for Awami League already announced, the party will secure eight per cent more Muslim votes which will be more than enough to compensate the loss if Hindu voters decide to turn away from the ruling party.

As a result, both Khaleda Zia and Jamaat leaders are desperately trying to take full advantage of the insecure Hindu psyche. They are aggravating it by openly alleging that whenever the Awami League comes to power, there is a sudden spurt in attacks on minorities, as exemplified by the recent large-scale looting and destruction of Hindu properties and places of worship in Hindu populated areas of Brahmanbaria, Rangpur, Dinajpur, Jessore and Pabna. Even properties of Santhals and other tribal groups have been targeted.

The purpose of levelling such allegations against the Awami League is to create hatred and antipathy in the minds of Hindus towards the ruling party so that it no longer remains their first electoral choice. The BNP-Jamaat-strategy is that minorities, especially Hindus, must support the Islamists to buy peace and security for themselves. Many Hindus think that this is the safest bet to save themselves from the onsla-ught of Islamists. Interestingly, this mischievous propaganda is being carried out by those who are the actual persecutors of minorities and have gone unpunished even under Hasina’s rule.

“Confusion is being deliberately created in the minds of minorities so as to disturb the Awami League’s assured vote bank. Scores of my patients come running to me everyday to inquire whether they will be allowed to vote this time or will it be safe to vote for the ruling party at all,” said Hasina’s personal physician Pran Gopal Datta. “While I share their predicament, I try to assure them by saying not to lose heart. But it makes no impact. Minorities have been so badly traumatised that they have been telling both BNP-Jamaat and Awami League to leave them alone as they don’t want to fall prey to a fresh round of persecution. For them, the election at once evokes images of rape of their womenfolk and total destruction and encroachment of their properties.”

Unfortunately, the League is losing the goodwill of the minorities as its lower level leaders have allowed Jamaat infiltration by using Jamaat cadres in their internecine feuds to gain organisation control. But the Jamatis enjoying the ruling party’s protection, follow their own agenda of persecuting the minorities.

“This politics of opportunism is going to cost the Awami League dearly in this election. The extent of Jamaat infiltration into the Awami League can be gauged from the fact  that 169 Jamatis got elected to the village-level Union Parishad poll on Awami League ticket. This has tarnished the party’s image considerably for compromising with Islamists,” said a leading lawyer and one of the prosecutors of International War Crimes Tribunal Rana Dasgupta.

He added, “Sheikh Hasina’s Government is the only one which has done a great deal for the upliftment of Hindus and other minorities. Also, there is no state-sponsored persecution of minorities whenever the Awami League comes to power. That can’t be said about the BNP-Jamaat.”

After the death of Awami League leader Suranjit Sengupta last year, the absence of a credible leader who can speak on behalf of all minorities has made the crisis of existence of minorities even more acute. As a result, there has been a mushrooming of Hindu leaders of various shades who have launched dubious Hindu parties like the Hindu Mohajot, with support from BNP-Jamaat. Their sole purpose is to split the League’s minority vote bank. This new breed of Hindu leaders is widely known as ‘Hindu Razakars’.

Pran Gopal Datta said that Hasina must meet some of the pressing demands of the Hindu community to get back its support and confidence like setting up a Minorities Commission and penalise bureaucrats who are subverting her attempts to restore vested properties to their rightful Hindu owners.        

(The writer is a veteran Kolkata-based journalist)

Writer: Manash Ghosh

Courtesy: The Pioneer

“There seems to be a European civil war” between rising authoritarianism and liberal democracy, warns the French President Emmanuel Macron.

He urged the EU to renew its commitment to democracy, in a passionate speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. “I don’t want to belong to a generation of sleepwalkers that has forgotten its own past”, he said, recalling how the EU arose after World War Two.

He is launching debates with voters, aimed at re-engaging them with the EU.

In his speech, he condemned what he called “a fascination with the illiberal” in Europe.

Last year Macron and his new liberal party, La République en Marche (LREM), triumphed in French elections with a strongly pro-EU platform.

His second-round rival in the presidential election was National Front (FN) leader Marine Le Pen, a nationalist and fierce critic of the EU.

Macron was also hitting back at the Eurosceptics who drove the vote for Brexit in the UK. As Brexit will leave a big hole in the EU budget he said there should no longer be budget rebates for some member states. He added that France was prepared to increase its contribution.

Macron proposed to create a European fund for communities that take in refugees in a bid to tackle one of the most politically toxic issues facing the EU.

“I propose creating a European programme that directly financially supports local communities that welcome and integrate refugees,” Macron said in a speech to the European Parliament outlining his vision for the bloc.

“France, Britain and the United States carried out airstrikes targeting chemical weapons sites in Syria to defend the “honour of the international community”, he added.

“Three countries have intervened, and let me be quite frank, quite honest — this is for the honour of the international community,” Macron said.  

Writer: Agencies

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Professor Dinesh Singh highlighted the ‘philosophy of ‘Mimansa’ which means that information without action is worthless and thus we have to improve the quality of education through different initiatives.

Professor Dinesh Singh, former Vice-Chancellor, Delhi University stressed on making India a knowledge economy, changing people’s ideology and developing alertness among citizens for the overall development of the nation.

Prof CB Sharma, the chief trustee of the Shanti Upendra Foundation for Development Initiatives (SUFDI), a trust created in 2010 for extending education to those who have been deprived of it. The attempt was also to improve the quality of education through different initiatives. The aim of the trust is to establish academic institutions, conduct research and also undertake extension activities. The trust is attempting to emerge as a think tank in the area of education besides advising governments on policy issues. The trust also awards Sushamajay Scholarship to girls who have lost their parents and are likely to discontinue their studies. Every year two to three girls from the Vidya Mandir Vidyalaya, Belwari (Meghalaya) are awarded scholarship which also includes hostel and other charges for continuing their studies. For this, an amount of Rs 1 lakh every year is donated by Aparna Sharma, daughter of Late Ajay Kumar and Sushma Sharma of Manjhaul, Dist Begusarai (Bihar) and grand-daughter of Upendra and Shanti Sharma.

The trust organises a memorial lecture every year in the memory of Shanti Sharma, wife of late Upendra Sharma, the founder of the trust. Various eminent educationist have delivered lectures on this occasion viz. Prof Naresh Dadhich, Vice Chancellor, Kota Open University; PA Sangma, Former Speaker, Lok Sabha; Prof Sanjeev Sharma, professor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut; Dr Krishna Gopal, joint general secretary, Rashtriya Sevak Sangh.  This year, the 5th Shanti Sharma memorial lecture has been delivered by Professor Dinesh Singh, former Vice-Chancellor, Delhi University.

Professor Singh stated that the memorial lecture is organised in the memory of ‘a mother’ and India is mother to all of us so the lecture is dedicated to Shanti Sharma and “Bharat Maa”. He spoke on the topic India as a knowledge economy: need of the hour and mentioned that through this lecture perhaps there would be some change in our thinking and understanding.

He stressed on making India a knowledge economy which would result in the development of the country. The ideology of people needs to be changed for India to become a developed country. He emphasised that the India needs to be more alert and aware to get rid of lacunae in the system. He emphasised on philosophy of Mimansa which means that knowledge without action is meaningless and thus we have to evaluate ourselves. He reiterated that the knowledge system should be holistic and trans disciplinary and based on a hands-on application theory connected to the needs and challenges of India. There is a need to improve our system, especially the one related to education, for the benefit of our economy. Indians have to recognise the power given to us by the Supreme Being which can do wonders for the nation, if done with good intention. Indians have an ample sources of knowledge rooted in ancient India. Whether it is navigation, astronomy or astrology or science we can draw upon those to develop further. The proof of it lies in the fact that the Indian society and civilisation was regarded as the best during ancient times too. So much so, foreigners used to visit the Indian subcontinent to study in reputed Indian universities.

Writer: Dinesh Singh

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Nepal Prime Minister KP Oli won the Anti-India Campaign election which become equivalent to ultra-nationalism. This signals a significant calibration of bilateral ties. His term initiates India-china competition in the Himalayan State.

Prime Minister KP Oli arrived half an hour late for his last function organised by the BJP’s India Foundation, the party’ informal diplomatic outreach. A restless audience included Government Ministers, the thinking community, diplomats and the media. The contents of Oli’s longish speech, though quite spectacular, were lost in the routine delivery. There was no standing ovation.

Then closing his file and speech, Oli looked up, suddenly alight and energetic. Placing both his arms on the lectern and surveying the audience, he said: “There are rumours and rumours that my Government is a threat to democracy” and he briefly countered it. His critique apparently pointed to an Indian expert, who according to a Nepali journalist present, had written/spoken on television in Nepal that the Left alliance posed a threat to democracy. The second rumour was regarding Oli’s pro-China disposition. He said. “There will be no tilt towards China.” It was jolly good way to wake up the audience and end his visit to New Delhi.

His read out speech contained one more gem. It was a veiled reference to the blockade — which is part of the great misunderstanding of 2015-16 — he warned that blocking movement of goods, services and people should have no place in today’s interconnected world and the interconnected neighbourhood. As someone who followed his public utterances, Oli has been messaging to India not to take Nepal for granted and treat it as an equal with respect and dignity and as an independent and sovereign country without messing in its internal affairs. That, according to him, will reduce the current trust deficit.

The courting of Oli by India who won a thumping mandate, is the clearest indication of an intended reset in relations. Oli had indicated that he will not discuss any ‘internal matters’ with India. That is why there was no talk on China, Constitutional issues and OBOR which Oli said is in Nepal’s national interest. The Indian stand is quite the opposite. The one-on-one talks between the two Prime Ministers did cover assurances by both sides to uphold each other’s legitimate national and security interests.

The question no one asked Oli and in Beijing Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying is why did China not invite Oli to preempt the India visit. After all, Beijing’s role in Nepal is anything but the stated policy of non-interference in internal affairs. China’s influence is ubiquitous: Its economic investment substantive and role in domestic politics widespread and weighty. Optically, it would have been a major political victory for China had Oli been invited first to Beijing than new Delhi.

In 2008, Maoist pro-China Prime Minister, Prachanda made his first foreign visit to Beijing to attend the closing ceremony of the Olympics much to India’s dismay and breaking the India First tradition. On his return, Prachanda announced that his first ‘political’ visit would be to India and so it was. Prachanda’s time was consumed by  strategies for occupancy of Baluwatar (Prime Minister’s residence) and watching the shuffling of Marxist-Leninists and Maoist contenders for the job but Prachanda did not become Prime Minister again till his gentleman’s power-sharing agreement with Deuba in 2016. He deserted Deuba mid stream by joining the Left Alliance.

Inside the unified Marxist Leninist core group, a debate has started on the proposed merger with Maoists and the nomenclature of the party. Many young leaders are questioning the contemporary relevance of the dear departed Marx and Lenin and are in favour of renaming the party giving it a socialist, democratic and inclusive hue. But they fear the Maoists would block this. Such visionary ideas are unlikely to materialize anytime soon.

Oli spoke about the 80 per cent vote his Government secured in the Parliament and that soon he would have an unprecedented three fourths majority with both the Terai-based Federal Socialist Forum and the Rashtriya Janata Party joining the Government.

Besides numerical strength, the Government will then truly acquire a whole-of-Nepal complexion. It would also provide cushion in any future political realignments with Maoists acting as the swing party. The merger of the two Left parties is slated for April 22 but sharing the spoils of office with Prachanda in the new Communist Party of Nepal will not be easy. The Maoist argument is that if 60:40 was acceptable for seat sharing during elections, a 50:50 division ought to be reasonable in the share of leadership in the party central organization and its tiers down to the local level. It seems that eventually Oli may concede the 60:40 or 55:45 formula. On the larger question of a future Prachanda premiership there is little stated clarity, equally little doubt, that it is inevitable.

India has chosen to place most of its eggs in the Oli basket with few alternate options. This was evident from doubling economic assistance for Nepal by 73 per cent to nearly Rs 650 crore, second only to Bhutan. Oli’s aim is to use the political stability for making Nepal prosperous and happy and utilising both its powerful neighbours in focusing on development. Equidistant is the sine-qua non of his foreign policy.

Oli has sought Indian investment in hydropower, farming, infrastructure and tourism. India is already building 50,000 homes following the 2015 earthquake. Apparently, Modi bluntly told Oli that if China will build most of its hydropower projects, India will not buy the surplus power. The $2.5 billion Budhi Gandaki hydel project has become the bone of contention between India and China though Oli has promised  it to Beijing. Most high-value infrastructure projects have been bagged by China.

While the commissioning of the long-delayed Arun III hydropower project was postponed during the visit due to ecological difficulties on the Nepal side, new oil pipelines, railway lines including one to Kathmandu, inland waterways, accessing the sea, have been pledged by India.

Many projects, for which commitments were made years ago, never took off, Nepalese keep reminding India. Oli is supposed to have told Modi about the decades-old Pancheshwar and Mahakali projects and said that Delhi was required to build a 1.5 km road from Banbasa to Mahendranagar. Nepal has waited 22 years and added: “India is known to build 30 km of roads every day’’. India must improve quality and timely delivery of projects because  comparison is made with China.

Ironically Oli won the elections on an anti-India cry which became synonymous with ultra-nationalism. His term marks the start of the  India-China competition with a Nepali umpire.

(The writer is a retired Major General of the Indian Army and founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the revamped Integrated Defence Staff)

Writer: Ashok K Mehta

Courtesy: The Pioneer