Unless the US administration develops a plan with the backing of claimant countries to normalise the situation in the South China Sea, China will continue to strengthen its grip in the region

At a time when the entire world is grappling with the Coronavirus pandemic, China has ramped up its aggressive expansionism in the South China Sea, raising concern not only among its smaller neighbours but in India as well. A slew of decisions taken in recent times, like the establishment of two new districts of Xisha and Nansha to administer the contested Spratly and Paracel island chains, the naming of 80 islands and other geographical features in the South China Sea and some other immediate developments are all aimed to further consolidate claim and physical control over disputed areas. Experts see this as an attempt to impose Chinese domestic law. This, despite the protests from other claimants.

Certainly, with its rise as a military and economic power, China aims to establish full control over the waters of the South China Sea, reversing its commitment to peacefully resolve dispute in this area with other claimant countries, including Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines and Brunei. The Xi Jinping Government has already extensively militarised the South China Sea. There has been increased patrolling by the Chinese Coast Guard and Navy forces, several man-made islands have been developed and anti-ship cruise missiles, anti-aircraft batteries and missile defences have been deployed.

But to assume that China’s rise as a military and economic power alone enabled it to navigate an assertive action plan in the South China Sea would be wrong. Other factors have pushed the region to the current flashpoint. One that has given a boost to China’s sinister move to make this region its exclusive zone is the complete absence of an effective and collective response from other claimant countries.

Not once did the Association of Southeast Asian Countries (Asean) issue a strong warning to China for trying to unilaterally alter the geographical dynamics of the South China Sea. Differences among the Asean members have always been persistent on containing the rise of China. More to the point, since Asean works on the basis of consensus, China has been successful in creating a divide among its member countries on the issue of the South China Sea by providing financial support to some.

Recall how Asean behaved as a dead institution when in 2016, China completely disregarded a verdict of the international tribunal, which concluded that there was no legal basis for it to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the “nine-dash line” and accepted the claims of the Philippines. This regional grouping’s record is also dismal as far as the development of a code of conduct with China is concerned. Consider the Philippines’s act. Instead of aggressively making efforts to issue the implementation of the 2016 decision of the international tribunal against China, it decided to compromise with Beijing, with the intent to attract huge financial assistance. At the same time, institutions of global governance, too, failed in forcing China to behave as a normal and responsible State.

The US’ incoherent policy is no less responsible for the current impasse in the region. Both former US President Barack Obama and the current one, Donald Trump, failed to develop a comprehensive policy to address the crisis in the South China Sea. Thus, while Obama’s half-hearted policy of Pivot to Asia could not stop China from developing several artificial islands, Trump’s trade war with China has consumed four years.

Consequently, his vision of promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific is still at the nascent stage. True, the Trump administration made efforts to boost Taiwan’s military power, with the US Navy conducting more freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea than in the past. But these isolated efforts can hardly produce an effective deterrence against China.

This is amply clear from the fact that the Xi Jinping Government has consolidated its control over the strategic locations between the Indian and Pacific Oceans through which one-third of the global maritime trade passes every year. Beijing has purposefully followed the policy of not allowing other regional littoral countries to have free movement in the South China Sea to secure full access to huge oil and gas reservoirs in the region. It is also threatening outsider countries, including the US, to not enter the South China Sea. What is more, China is doing all these things with complete impunity.

Interestingly, the last few months have witnessed a remarkable change in the South China Sea region in the sense that a few countries — Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines — have become much more critical about Chinese activities in the region than ever before. In early April, a Chinese Coast Guard vessel reportedly sank a Vietnamese fishing boat off the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea and in a rare display of bilateral solidarity, Manila supported Hanoi in its protest to Beijing.

In mid-April, a Chinese survey ship, Haiyang Dizhi 8, with Coast Guard and maritime militia escorts, moved into a region in the South China Sea — proximate to Malaysia — to disrupt a gas drilling operation by a Malaysian oil company, leading to a protest by Kuala Lumpur.

Undoubtedly, while the recent collective move by these claimant countries to push China on the South China issue is encouraging, it is equally true that unless the US administration develops a clear plan with the backing of other claimant countries to normalise the situation in the South China Sea, China will continue to strengthen its grip over the region.

While Taiwan has indeed taken a pragmatic approach to deal with the current situation by appealing to all parties to resolve the dispute with peaceful means, the Tsai Government also needs to explore all options to protect itself from China’s aggression, especially when Beijing’s increased involvement in the South China Sea has already posed a serious concern for Taiwan.

India is unlikely to be immune from China’s belligerence. Take the case of Huawei 5G competition as an example.   It is, thus, imperative for the Narendra Modi Government to cooperate with others to push back Chinese tactics.

(Writer: Sumit Jha; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

There is some merit in suggestions by ex-SC judge on rotational lockdowns in States to maintain green norms

As we enjoy clean, blue skies and bird song from the confines of our homes, a former Supreme Court judge has suggested that we not fritter away the environmental advantage we have gained during the 53-day-long shutdown. Justice Deepak Gupta has recommended that we reduce traffic and industrial effluents and impose a 15-day lockdown in different parts of the country on a rotational basis each year as this will lead to cleaner air and water. And help us meet environment conservation benchmarks that we have been dilly-dallying on. Or working on in a rather piecemeal manner. Justice Gupta was on the green bench of the apex court for three years before he retired on May 6. And he minced no words, saying that while in some cases, the Environment Ministry was proactive in implementing the orders of the Supreme Court, when there were clashes pertaining to big industries and issues of environmental clearances and permissions, there was a “lack of willingness on their part to implement our order” especially when “the governments want big industrial units to be set up in a particular region.” At least COVID-19 has opened us up to the possibility of nurturing our environment while not compromising development. Indeed the pandemic achieved in less than a month what the Supreme Court could not do in the last 35 years. Reports by the European Space Agency reveal that by early February, levels of air pollution causing nitrogen dioxide (NO2) over cities and industrial areas in Asia and Europe were 40 per cent lower than in the same period last year. NASA measured a steep drop in China’s NO2 emissions and said the NO2 pollution over New York and other major metropolitan areas in north-eastern USA was 30 per cent lower. In the UK, too, NO2 pollution in some cities fell by as much as 60 per cent. India saw similar advantages. A few weeks into the lockdown, cities like Delhi, Bengaluru, Kolkata and Lucknow saw their average Air Quality Index (AQI) staying below 50. In fact, in the first week of April, there were reports of residents of Jalandhar, Punjab being able to see the Dhauladhar mountain range nearly 213 kilometres away after decades. By the end of April, people in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, could see the snow-capped peaks of the Himalayas from their rooftops. The Ganga and the Yamuna rivers have also benefitted and according to the Central Pollution Control Board, the average water quality of 27 points of the Ganga is now suitable for bathing and propagation of wildlife and fisheries.

So as we begin easing our lives post-pandemic, we have to ensure that we don’t lose these environmental gains. Not just because of the climate change or pollution crisis but because clean air is our ally in fighting the Coronavirus. Pollution helps viruses do their job better as the dirty air damages our respiratory systems and makes us more susceptible. So, whether India Inc likes it or not, in order to reduce the spread of epidemics in the future, cutting down air pollution now will be a key conditionality. So, as India tries to get back on its feet economically, better implementation of the environmental, transport and industry regulations will have to be a priority to ease the detrimental impacts of human activity on the environment. The lockdown has showed us a way of workarounds. Or the possibilities that we wouldn’t want to contemplate otherwise. Sustainable development is the only way forward because if we don’t respect nature, we have to be ready to bear the consequences when it strikes back.  As we are experiencing, it can be fiercely brutal.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Religious bigotry can sometimes even unknowingly colour our sense of community and we end up alienating people

In 2006, I was invited for lunch by a close relative, Yawar, at his spacious bungalow in Karachi’s  posh DHA area. When I arrived, I found him sitting with a dozen or so serious-looking gentlemen in his drawing room. After getting up to greet me, Yawar quietly apologised, saying that since he was the chairman of the area’s residents committee, he could not decline a request by other members for an urgent meeting.

In fact, out of politeness and also to keep me occupied, he asked me to attend the meeting too.

The matter being discussed had to do with some members demanding that the monthly committee meetings be held at a fixed venue instead of at their homes as this inconvenienced the families of the members.

Various options were being aired in this regard. The Golf Club, the Creek Club, the Karachi Gymkhana and so on, until one Zahoor sahib suggested that the committee start holding its meetings at the area’s mosque every third Friday of the month, after the jumma namaz (Friday prayer) was over.

Instantly a consensus was reached. Well, almost. Because three men remained conspicuously silent. Finally, one of them, Munawwar sahib, a man who owned a chain of utility stores across the country, spoke, “Friends, how do you plan to get Henry sahib and Anosh sahib into the mosque?”

Both Henry and Anosh, who were  members of the committee, were non-Muslims. While Henry  sahib was a Christian, Anosh sahib was a Parsi. That’s why both the men had kept quiet, too.

An awkward silence descended upon the room.  My relative suddenly turned towards me and asked, “Nadeem, what do you think? Would it be possible?”

Taken aback, I just shrugged my shoulders: “I’m not very good at these things, but since these two gentlemen are residents of the area and …”

Zahoor sahib cut me off: “We can ask Imam sahib!”

Now, apparently, this “Imam sahib” was not the Imam of the mosque but an aged person who was treated as a religious scholar by the residents. He and his wife delivered religious lectures to the men and women of the area every three months or so.

“Friends, why are you complicating matters for Anosh sahib and Henry sahib? Why create an issue? We can meet somewhere else, unless we are looking to get some extra blessings from the Almighty by having our committee meetings at a mosque,” Munawwar said.

This did not go down well with Zahoor. “Munawwar, you hardly come to the mosque. Maybe our meetings will be able to make you come and pray there more often…”

There was laughter all round. But none from Anosh or Henry.

“If I may,” I politely interrupted, “why not ask Henry sahib and Anosh sahib?”

Munawar agreed: “Absolutely! They contribute to the funds of the committee as much as any one of us. And they have a vote too.”

Unfortunately, this suggestion seemed to have made Henry sahib and  Anosh sahib even more uncomfortable.

“No, no, you do what you think is right …” Anosh sahib said, evasively.

Then Henry sahib spoke: “You can have the meetings there (at the mosque) and can update us…”

“Thank you,” said Zahoor, “so we all agree on this then?” Some quietly nodded their heads, and some softly said “yes.”

But in came Munawwar again: “In that case, I suggest, the monthly maintenance bills of Anosh sahib and Henry sahib be slightly less than ours.”

“And why so?” asked one Danish sahib. “Because, if we use the mosque for our meetings, the maulvi (priest) will rightly ask us to contribute to the mosque’s electricity bill. That would be added to our individual maintenance fee. Why should these two men pay additional charges if they are not even there?” said Munawwar.

“The mosque will charge us?” asked Danish, surprised. “But we already pay for its upkeep.”

“We can ask Imam sahib,” said Munawwar, sarcastically. I tried my best not to smile but no one else in the room treated Munawwar’s comment as a sarcastic jab. Instead, they now began to discuss the topic of a mosque charging a fee from its funders. They shared relevant quotes from the holy book and quotes from Imam sahib’s speeches, until Danish announced, “We already pay for the mosque! For its electricity, water, gas…”

“It has a gas connection too?” someone asked.

“Maulvi sahib and his family have to eat too, brother. So they cook in the rooms where they live, connected to the mosque,” Zahoor sahib replied.

So it was agreed. They would meet at the mosque (and Anosh and Henry would have to pay as much maintenance fee as everyone else).

Years later, in 2017, I was driving through another posh locality of Karachi — Bath Island — when I saw Munawwar walking briskly on a street. I stopped my car to say hello. “Munawwar sahib, do you recognise me?”

“Yes, yes. I do. How are you?” he replied.

“What are you doing here in Bath Island?” I asked.

“I now live here,” he said.

“Where are you walking to so hastily? Let me give you a lift.” I offered.

“No, no, it’s quite alright,” he said. “I’m just going to that mosque over there.”

“Munawwar I grew up in this area. Friday prayers ended an hour ago in that mosque”, I said to him.

He laughed: “No, little brother. I am going there to attend a meeting of our residents’ committee.”

“Really?” I smiled widely, thinking he was joking. “Even in this area?”

“Boss, this area or that, what does it matter? People are the same everywhere,” he smiled back.

“How did the mosque meetings at DHA go?” I asked.

“Didn’t Yawar tell you?” he asked.

This is what happened: Munawwar sold his house in DHA. Since he had continued to insist on including  Anosh and Henry in the meetings, some members of the committee started to suspect he was from a heretical sect, although he wasn’t. Munawwar was just a right-thinking liberal hearted man. Even though these members were admonished by others for saying such spiteful things, Munawwar left the area with his family.

“What about here? Are there no Anosh or Henry sahibs here”, I asked. “I’m sure there are,” he replied. “But I have learned to ignore them. I’m sure you can understand.”

Saying this, he bid me farewell, and walked away.

(Writer: Nadeem Paracha; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

The Taliban are re-evaluating ties with their Pak allies and are fearing the extremism that ISI activity brings. India must provide them with an alternate regional option, says Ranvijay Singh

With India currently besieged by Covid-19 and the host of socio-economic problems that come along with it, few can afford to worry about geo-political machinations taking place abroad. Yet, as the peace process between the United States (US) and the Taliban in Afghanistan reaches a precarious position — with the Taliban having ramped up their attacks against the Afghan Government despite the recent spread of the Coronavirus in the country — it is imperative India takes stock of the situation.

While it might be many months before the US finally exits Afghanistan, especially with the virus complicating prisoner exchange and the ongoing negotiations, the South Asian security matrix is going to undergo a paradigm shift once all American military operations come to their inevitable end. India must aim to use this transition to boost its regional security interests.

The conflict in Afghanistan can at one level be understood as being between the majority Pashtuns who are mostly concentrated in Southern and Central Afghanistan (and across the Durand Line, the 2,430-km border between Afghanistan and Pakistan), who the Taliban claim to represent, fighting against the empowerment of ethnic minorities from northern Afghanistan such as the Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks by successive democratically- elected governments.

While both the past and present presidents of Afghanistan — Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani — are Pashtun, they are seen as leaders propped up by the West. They are also seen as being overly-sympathetic to ethnic minorities. Moreover, many State institutions are dominated by ethnic minorities and see a lack of representation by the Pashtuns.

However, the conflict in Afghanistan has also been considered as a continuation of the proxy war between India and Pakistan. It is no secret that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has deep ties with the Taliban and has continued to back extremist groups in Afghanistan, even while calling itself an “ally” of the US in its war on terror.

A recent example of the Pakistani military establishment’s support to the Taliban and allied terror groups was the attack on a gurdwara in Kabul on March 25. Prima facie it was thought to be an attack carried out by the Islamic State (IS). However, further investigations carried out by Afghan authorities found direct links between the attackers, the Taliban-linked Haqqani Network and the ISI. A report produced by the European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS) further substantiated these links.

India, on its part, has been a staunch supporter of the democratic Afghan State. This link has existed since the pre-9/11 terror attacks, when New Delhi supplied military equipment and humanitarian support to the Northern Alliance in its effort to topple the brutal Taliban regime.

The Northern Alliance later went on to form the Afghan Government and many of its leaders, such as General Dostum, are now key members of the present regime. William Dalrymple’s Brookings Essay A Deadly Triangle, published in 2013, presents and explains this tacit conflict cogently.

With the US now having committed to leaving, the weakest entity in this entire sum seems to be the Afghan Government. With the decrease in Western military support to it, the Taliban have made steady gains and now control over a third of the country. The Afghan National Army has been unable to establish itself as an effective fighting force.

Moreover, the recent election results have been heavily disputed and both leading candidates, incumbent Ashraf Ghani and his opponent Abdullah Abdullah, have sworn themselves in as President in March. A divided civilian leadership, a weak military establishment and with US support nearing its expiry date, the Afghan Government now finds itself in a bleak spot.

This situation has been further exacerbated by the US negotiating for a peace deal directly with the Taliban without the Afghan Government. Regardless of how these negotiations ultimately pan out, any form of eventual peace will need the integration of the Taliban into the governing State — a realisation that made the US finally reach the negotiation table. As it stands presently, the Taliban have been able to keep their sphere of influence strong enough to make the US realise that trying to govern Afghanistan as a whole, in a state of peace and stability, would be impossible without their cooperation. The US war aim of completely eradicating the Taliban and making the majority ethnic group, the Pashtuns, co-opt into a democratic system dominated by minority ethnic groups was near impossible. Ghani and Abdullah both need to realise this, if they have not already done so.

So where does India find itself at this threshold of a new phase in Afghanistan? The resurgence of the Taliban has obviously worried New Delhi. A key interest of India, if not its main, is to ensure that the Afghan State does not eventually consist of elements that would support extremist groups functioning in Kashmir. In the past, the Taliban have been known to have warm relations with the Lakshar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). Extremist networks based in Kashmir, with the backing of the IS, have been known previously to have auxiliary bases functioning freely across Afghanistan and Pakistan.

However, the Taliban now seem to be willing to leave behind extremist inclinations if allowed to integrate into the Afghan State. They have repeatedly claimed that they have now cut former ties and will not allow terror groups to function in Afghanistan if allowed to form a Government. Recently, during an online conference hosted by the Delhi-based think-tank Global Counter-terrorism Council, the Taliban spokesperson Mohammad Shaheen stated, “We will never want any foreign organisation using Afghan soil to target another country. We will bring a law to stop any such activity.”  More pertinently, Shaheen also claimed that the Taliban would be more than willing to engage with neighbouring countries “on the basis of mutual respect and mutual interests.”

While the solidity of these sentiments will only be seen in times to come, India must now aim to establish some sort of ties with the Taliban. Till now, it has been openly hostile to the negotiations undertaken by the US and has repeatedly tried to lobby for their termination. Continuing such aggressive posturing against the Taliban is folly if India wants to have substantial influence in a post-America Afghanistan. At a time when the Taliban themselves are re-evaluating their relations with their Pakistani allies and are fearing the spectre of extremism and lawlessness that ISI activity brings, India must aim to provide them with an alternate regional option.

Some analysts, such as veteran journalist and author Ahmed Rashid, have even gone on to claim that the Taliban would prefer closer relations with India now. In contrast to Pakistan, which has backed terror groups that have only brought destruction and devastation upon the country, India has immense soft power in Afghanistan. Holding back from military intervention, while continuing to support Afghanistan economically with Indian aid totalling more than $3 billion now, has been an effective geo-political move.

Further strengthening this commitment, the Indian Government in mid-April sent medical and food supplies to aid the Afghan Government in tackling Covid-19. If relations with the Taliban are not established in this new chapter of Afghanistan, which will most likely see them play a pivotal role, India will risk squandering its influence. Simultaneously though, India must also continue its engagement with the democratic regime and the northern ethnic minorities. It is equally important to remember that a situation resembling the Afghan civil war of the late 90s, between the Taliban and the erstwhile Northern Alliance, is still very much a possibility.

In a situation of an all-out military campaign, where the Taliban might have an inclination to fall back on Pakistan for assistance, India must be ready to engage with equivalent assistance in the form of economic and humanitarian aid to the entities that will safeguard its interests. Some hawkish voices have even called for Indian boots on the ground in an effort to fill the void that will be left by the US troops.

Yet, if history has taught us anything, after the British, Soviet and now US misadventure to stabilise Afghanistan, it would be a terrible mistake to do so. It is important to remember that much of the goodwill harboured by the Afghans towards India has been due to our ability to help them without intervening militarily, an action which will be perceived as hostile by many. No nation appreciates the idea of a foreign army on its soil — especially not Afghanistan.

In a situation which is constantly developing and has the possibility of multifarious outcomes, India must constantly try to pre-empt the status quo and build ties that will help assert its geo-political interests. A stable and peaceful regime in Afghanistan, which censures terror activity, is vital to India’s security interests. Deeming Afghanistan to be irrelevant, as some have, will only result in the weakening of India’s position in South Asia.

(Writer: Ranvijay Singh; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

With the Afghan peace deal on hold due to its infirmities and COVID-19, India has its role cut out: To open a back channel with the Taliban and carve out a place in intra-Afghan dialogue

For the Americans especially, the most spectacular political event in the first quarter of 2020 was the signing of the Afghanistan peace deal between the US and the Taliban at Doha and simultaneously, a US-Afghanistan agreement at Kabul. The first agreement fructified after many nations, including Russia and China, failed to broker one. However imperfect, indeed flawed, for US President Donald Trump, the deal is meant to be a game-changer for his re-election later this year. He will bring back 4,000 US soldiers by August and the remaining 12,000 by July 2021.

The International Crisis Group, Brussels, described the agreement as “ambiguous and at places contradictory, leading to confusion.” The anomalies have already been discussed threadbare. The agreements have opened two new mechanisms: Direct military channel between the US military commander at Kabul with the Taliban at Doha; and a new Afghanistan-Pakistan dialogue facilitated by America, aimed at border security and ending terrorist safe-havens.

Trump was overwhelmed by the agreements but acknowledged in response to a question that the Taliban could seize power after the US and Nato forces leave Afghanistan. “Yes, that is possible…US’ commitment to Afghanistan comes with an expiry date,” he said. The swearing-in of the two Afghan Presidents in the same building created its own confusion dynamics but this time around, US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, instead of mediating between  them, threatened to cut $1 billion from security funding, not just for this year but also next year. The prisoner swap — of 5,000 Taliban for 1,000 Afghan soldiers — is also stuck on the modalities of release and the Taliban not reducing violence, leading to a comprehensive ceasefire. For the first time, the US mission in Afghanistan has refused to disclose the details of ground operations and casualties. But the office of Afghanistan’s National Security Advisor said that the Taliban has carried out 2,804 attacks since the peace agreement was signed on February 29.

The mother of all problems on both sides, the Taliban and its adversaries, is the COVID-19 pandemic, which has invaded the presidential palace, too. The first Corona case in Afghanistan was detected at Herat on February 24. On May 4, 3,894  positive cases were reported with 400 recoveries and 90 deaths. The highest incidence of cases is in Herat due to its proximity to Iran and several thousand Afghan refugees are returning home. A Coronavirus task force, led by Vice President Amrullah Saleh, former head of National Directorate of Security, along with a technical team from the National Security Council attached to it has been established. It is feared that if the pandemic is not contained, it could spread to central Asia.

India has been relatively active in Afghanistan following the signing of the peace agreements. Its consistency in refusing to open the channels with the Taliban is remarkably amazing. Foreign Minister S Jaishankar likened the US-Taliban deal with a long-awaited film, Pakeezah, and its 17 trailers, employing his emblematic phraseology: “We will watch this space for outcomes.”

Interestingly, India had stopped short of welcoming the agreements. Instead, the Ministry of External Affairs had noted that the “entire political spectrum in Afghanistan welcomed the opportunity for peace and stability.” Jaishankar has maintained India’s position that the gains of the last 18 years must be preserved. New Delhi was quick to acknowledge Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani’s victory in the presidential elections, overlooking loyal partner Abdullah Abdullah, whose family our country has hosted for several years. A deal between Ghani and Abdullah is in the making where the latter has proposed his name as Executive Prime Minister and leader of the talks team with the Taliban.

For the second time in three months, Taliban spokesperson Suhail Shaheen said that his organisation would want good relations in the neighbourhood on the basis of mutual interest and respect. “We will never want any foreign organisation to use the Afghan soil to target another country.” On February 29, Taliban supremo Hibatullah Akhundzada said that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan believes in sound relations with the world and the region.

The recent attack on a Gurudwara in Kabul that killed  25 Sikhs whereby it is not clear if the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant — Khorasan Province (ISIS-K) or the Haqqani Network was in the works, has sent a chilling message for the future of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) operations in Afghanistan targetting Indian assets. The arrest of ISIS-K leader, Abdullah Orakzai, a Pakistani national,  by the National Directorate of Security (NDS) recently will open up new trails. The Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) has claimed that ISIS-K has been virtually eliminated, including its top leaders, an achievement hailed by Ghani as the defeat of the ISIS-K. The Taliban, assisted by US firepower, apparently played a lead role in this victory. Latest threat assessments prompted India to withdraw two of its four consulates in Afghanistan at Herat and Jalalabad with two others in Kandahar and Mazar-e-Sharif remaining in place. Both these consulates have been targetted in the past too — Jalalabad has been attacked four times since 2007, even forcing its relocation in 2016. Herat was attacked in 2014 and Mazar-e-Sharif in 2013. The Jaish-e-Mohmmad and the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, in concert with the Haqqanis, were involved in these attacks.

The optimistic inference drawn from the US interlocutor Zalmay Khalilzad’s recent conversation with Jaishankar, enquiring on the COVID-19 pandemic and briefing him on the progress in the agreement with the Taliban, that India is now part of the peace process is highly misplaced. Expectations were raised by former President Hamid Karzai when he said at the Raisina Dialogue in January and more recently after the Khalilzad-Jaishankar conversation that India should be part of the peace process. Similarly, Mohammed Masoom Stanekzai, head of the Ghani-appointed 21-member talks team with the Taliban, said at a conference that India should be part of the regional conference on Afghanistan. Pakistan will never allow India to come inside the tent. Jaishankar knows it and will be watching that space keenly.

After all, the peace deal is a troop extrication agreement, not part of a peace process as the two agreements signed at Doha and Kabul are apparently not interlinked. Even so, last week, Khalilzad had urged the Taliban to observe peace and suspend offensive military operations during Ramadan as it was an opportunity for humanitarian ceasefire, at least till the Coronavirus crisis was over.

The Afghans are unhappy that the Taliban has pledged not to attack the US and other foreign forces but is continuing to kill fellow Afghans. With the implementation of the peace deal on hold due to its infirmities and COVID-19, India has its role cut out: To open back channel with the Taliban; hasten bridging the gap between Ghani and Abdullah, vital for the cohesion of national response to Taliban; re-deploy consulates at Herat and Jalalabad as soon as feasible; and carve out a place in intra-Afghan dialogue.

(Writer: Ashok K Mehta; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Article 75 of WHO’s Constitution gives it the right to refer matters to the ICJ for advisory purposes. China’s failure to disclose information and disseminate data about the virus during its preliminary stages, coupled with its wilful negligence in regulating wildlife trade, invariably triggers a breach of the treaty

The COVID-19 pandemic has engulfed over 100 countries around the world and for the lack of a cure, governments have been compelled to largely depend on social vaccination measures, including lockdown, isolation and social distancing. This flu-like virus, with origins in China’s Wuhan city, has caused tremendous distress in terms of health, economic and social well-being of the international community.

Accountability: World economies are in shambles but when the dust settles, fingers will be pointed and responsibility strictly apportioned. Already China is being pushed against the wall by the global community and difficult questions are being asked of it regarding the origins of the virus and the delay in warning the world about it turning into a pandemic.

Predictably, the issue of China’s legal liability for the COVID-19 outbreak will be raised. The US has filed a $20 trillion lawsuit — an amount larger than China’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — against Chinese authorities to seek reparation for economic harm. Similar lawsuits have been filed in Germany and India against China claiming compensation for damages. However, domestic laws  are unsuited for this task because the principle of sovereign immunity prevents local courts from ruling on the acts of foreign governments. For the lack of enforceability, we must redirect our attention to supranational legal frameworks for remedies and solutions to this precarious inquiry.

International Health Regulations, 2005: After the spread of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003, the World Health Organisation (WHO) adopted an International Health Regulation (IHR) by making member countries accountable to counter such global pandemics. Article 6 mandates each member country to “notify the WHO, by the most efficient means of communication available, by way of the National IHR Focal Point, and within 24 hours of assessment of public health information.” Further, Article 7 goes on to state that if a country “has evidence of an unexpected or unusual public health event within its territory, irrespective of origin or source, which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern, it shall provide to the WHO all relevant public health information.”

These regulations are further fortified by Articles 11 and 12 of the IHR which require the WHO to share such data, once verified, with other countries so that they can enact precautionary measures.

It is alleged that China not only failed on both counts but also censored, misled and suppressed information, from the media and the WHO, about the Coronavirus and its effects. Moreover, China portrayed COVID-19 as a new form of pneumonia that could not be transferred from one human to another, which was later  admitted by Chinese authorities as otherwise. Collectively, these actions made it difficult for countries around the world to adequately prepare for this deadly virus, leading to colossal damages to the health and finances of nations. The destruction of virus strains in Wuhan University also raised suspicions regarding the COVID-19 being a man-made virus to be used as a biological weapon, currently put under experimentation in Wuhan Labs. Keeping these accusations aside, it is important to note that it is not the first time China is the place of origin of an epidemic or deadly disease. From the Asian flu and Hong Kong flu to the Swine flu, all had China as their epicentre. In the case of SARS, China’s exotic wet market was on the radar but Beijing failed to impose restrictions on its billion dollar industry, overlooking the threat of a repeated catastrophe. China flouted the rules, time and again and for this, it must be held to account.

Jurisdictional issue: The final and probably the most vital piece in this puzzle is how might China be brought before an international court for its unlawful actions?

The major lacuna is the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Cases are referred to the ICJ once consensus between disputing parties has been established and taking into account past records, China has been resistant to authority and may continue on the path of resistance. An unconventional way of circumventing the jurisdictional issue would be to invoke the provision that empowers an organisation to refer disputes to the ICJ. Article 75 of WHO’s Constitution gives the organisation the right to refer matters to the ICJ for advisory purposes.

China’s failure to disclose information and disseminate data about the Coronavirus during its preliminary stages, coupled with its wilful negligence in regulating wildlife trade, invariably triggers a breach of the treaty. Though experimental and untested, this route offers a glimmer of hope for invoking the jurisdiction of the ICJ to assess Chinese liability and hold that nation accountable for losses caused to the international community at large.

While the ICJ’s opinion is not directly enforceable, they do provide an authoritative assessment of legal liability around which governments can synchronise their political response by way of seizure of Chinese assets or imposing trade sanctions. China, being Asia’s largest economy, holds an influential place in world politics today. This, however, shall not be construed as a means to assume absolute power and continue flouting rules of the IHR issued by the WHO.

Measures available to the affected countries are by no means simple. Each requires considerable international collaboration, cooperation and resolve to implement, particularly considering China’s towering economic influence. It is evident that China is the originator of the pandemic but it will be an onerous task to classify its action and response as advertent, willful or a case of gross negligence in its greed to push a lucrative, yet hazardous billion dollar industry.

(Writer: Sonam Chandwani; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

COVID-19 isn’t the only challenge for Johnson. The British PM needs to resolve trade talks with the European Union

Barely three weeks ago, when the cruel Coronavirus had infected British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, threatening his life and putting the entire country, its people and the Government on tenterhooks, none had expected that he would bounce back. But he did. And now he is proud father of a boy with  his partner, Carrie Symonds. All this must have surely made him forget the rollercoaster ride he had to go through last month in hospital, only three months after he secured a resounding personal mandate from a Brexit-weary electorate. Johnson, though, is not the first PM to have a child while in office; his predecessors David Cameron and Tony Blair, too, experienced fatherhood while being in the chair. May be Johnson will need to borrow paternity drills from their book. Like them, he, too, would find it difficult to achieve a balance between work and family life, especially in these tough times when the world, as also his country, is facing the darkest moment in history. It’s another matter that both Cameron and Blair were able to compartmentalise their familial and official duties. But the same cannot be said of Johnson. What do we do with his undeniable vigour and energy which define most of his political identity and appeal? Though he has made it clear that he would be postponing the paternity leave until the end of the year, for that to happen, the rules need to be bent for the Prime Minister as official codes call for the leave to end within 56 days of childbirth.

Officials commitments aside, though Johnson has been around the fatherhood course many times — maybe five, six or even more — to expect that any aspect of his life will be normal, even fatherhood, in these times, is irrational. Over 26,000 Britons have died due to the COVID pandemic, thanks to the Government’s early dilly-dallying approach and “herd immunity” experiments. Even now, it is feared that Britain may face the second wave of the disease and account for the worst fatality rate in Europe. COVID-19 isn’t the only challenge for Johnson. Even as the Government is currently fighting the most pressing crisis, there are the faltering trade talks with the European Union that need resolution. The Brexit ghost will come to haunt him once again. Father and Prime Minister Johnson has a tough job ahead.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Beijing has been pushed to the wall and should not be allowed to bounce back without paying for its deliberate mischief. India needs to support global efforts to contain China

While the world struggles to combat the deadly pandemic spread by Covid-19, the dragon nation believed to be the originator and spreader of the deadly virus is busy working out its options to combat the international pressure and campaign launched against it. The nation, which was dreaming of becoming the world leader, is today finding itself pushed to the wall, with most nations joining together and demanding an international inquiry into how the virus emerged out of the Wuhan laboratory and the deliberate delay in sharing information about its existence? The global community holds China responsible for the loss of health and human lives, the damage to the world economy and for the hardships humanity will have to face in a post-COVID world. Beijing is also being questioned over the disappearance of virus whistle-blowers in China and strict censoring of any information pertaining to the outbreak. As expected, China has denied all the allegations and continues to do so amid growing international demands of monetary compensation from it against the Coronavirus damages to the global economy.

Wuhan, which is the epicentre of the Coronavirus crisis, has been on the radar of the global community since long as it was dubbed to be the location of the largest virology laboratory in the world, housing about 1,500 kinds of viruses. It was also rumoured that the US and China were jointly developing the biological agent. The virus is believed to have hit the city in October but by the time the disease became global and Wuhan was locked down in the third week of January, maximum damage had already been done. Two weeks prior to the lockdown, almost five lakh people had left Wuhan for their homes in central China and 18 international destinations. Many of them were carriers of the deadly Coronavirus. The question now being asked as a subject of international inquiry is, “Was it intentional or accidental?”

Why does China find itself in a quagmire today? Despite its counter-offensive and rubbishing of allegations against it, the dragon nation finds itself isolated globally. A peep into recent events in China is essential to understand the same. The connection between the phenomenal rise of Xi Jinping and his autocratic style of functioning by capturing complete power within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and his ambition to make China the number one power in the world and the Wuhan episode is a matter of study. Xi is the most powerful man in China donning three hats of the general secretary of the CCP, president of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) among many other top Governmental posts. In order to make China great again, Xi has enunciated a grand strategy.

At the 19th CCP National Congress in October 2017, Xi announced his ambition of realising the “Chinese dream” of national rejuvenation. He said, “The Chinese nation has stood up, grown rich and is becoming a strong nation. To fulfil our dream, I have set up a timeline with three major target dates. By the party centenary in 2021, China should finish building a moderately prosperous society in all respects. By 2035, China should be much stronger economically and technologically, have become a global leader in innovation, and have completed its military modernisation. By the PRC centenary in 2049, China should have resolved the Taiwan question and be a strong country with world-class forces.” Was the Wuhan experiment part of the grand strategy of Xi? Was it planned as a centenary gift on the occasion of his first timeline of the celebration of the centenary of CCP?

“Winning without fighting” is an old Chinese strategy. It goes to the credit of modern Chinese leadership, including Xi, that they have not ignored the ancient Chinese wisdom but instead imbibed it in their modern thinking and strategies. Ancient Chinese General, strategist and philosopher Sun Tzu liked to win before the other side even knew they had lost. Was Xi trying to emulate the legendary Chinese strategist? China has also mastered the art of “grey zone warfare.” Xi’s grey zone tool kit is expansive and includes “global economic domination” through political and economic coercion. Was the virus intended as a masterstroke to cripple the competing world economies? If it was, Xi has definitely succeeded in his game plan for the time being. While India has always considered the threat from China as a reason to grow, Beijing has always envisaged us as an impediment and existential threat to the fulfilment of the “Chinese dream” and thus an intended target.

To its credit, the US was the first nation to call the Chinese bluff by blaming China and terming the pandemic as the “China virus.” It also questioned the role of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and put it under the scanner, ultimately withdrawing the financial assistance to the global health watchdog. Beijing lost no time in counter-attacking and blaming the US for bringing the virus to China during the World Military Games held in Wuhan in October 2019. It blamed the US for bringing infected soldiers as part of the 300-strong contingent. However, the Chinese argument was not convincing because had it been so, why did the virus not affect other athletes in the American contingent and from other contingents, including the Chinese, and why did it remain confined to Wuhan only?

In view of the prevailing geo-political situation, Iran was the only nation that supported the Chinese charge. Thus, the “conspiracy theory” sold by China as a counter-narrative to the assault by the US and other European nations failed to hold ground. The global community also took notice of the fact that by mid-March, when the rest of the world economies were on the verge of collapse and economists were predicting a worse crisis than 2008-09 or the “Great depression”, Chinese factories had commenced production.

China had begun to re-build its supply lines whereas a lockdown in major parts of the world had brought the global economy to a standstill. Worse than that was the aggressive buying overseas of the majority shares in their companies. It smacked of the real conspiracy since companies in China are also the properties of the CPC. Xi’s dirty ambition was exposed before the world.

India, during this entire crisis, has behaved like an independent, matured nation with paramountcy to its national interests. Many wanted India to join the US in withdrawing financial support to the WHO and echo the global outcry of an international enquiry against China. India did not want to be recognised as a cheerleader of the US or other west European countries but preferred to chart its independent course. India did not openly blame China because the situation demanded no disturbance on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) that may interfere in the nation’s fight against Covid-19. But India lost no time to nip in the bud the evil designs of Chinese companies by making Government nod mandatory for Foreign Direct Investments from neighbouring countries, a move aimed primarily at Chinese firms. Beijing did make a noise, calling it violation of World Trade Organisation norms but India stood firm.

The Indian intelligentsia also played its role in naming and shaming China. Brahma Chellany, a famous China-watcher, minced no words in stating, “The Covid-19 pandemic should be a wake- up call for a world that has accepted China’s lengthening shadow over global supply chains for far too long. It is only by reducing its global economic influence that the world can be kept safe from Chinese political pathologies.”

This outbreak is a golden opportunity for India to realise its ‘Make in India’ ambition and become a global manufacturing hub. India must also remember that power begets respect and compliance and  so it must keep its long-term vision in mind and strengthen its armed forces.

As a prelude to revival of the economy, India needs to ensure that its huge workforce stranded in various parts of the country is gainfully employed, thus generating jobs. The Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana package should not turn into a free dole but used to generate employment. Randhir Singh, a Chandigarh-based senior advocate, in a letter addressed to the PM has suggested effective measures to generate employment for migrant labour, which include: Organising them into a manageable workforce based on their skills and experience under retired personnel from uniformed forces as supervisors; employing them in time-bound projects under the local administration to include cleanliness and sanitisation of public places, cooking food in community kitchens, tree plantations, water harvesting, desilting, construction of water tanks and restoration of traditional check dams,  loading/unloading of essential supplies, supplementing farm labour and couriers/delivery boys.

The dragon has been pushed to the wall and should not be allowed to bounce back without paying for its deliberate mischief. India needs to complement the global effort and also chart a strategy to contain China in the post-Corona world.  India should also bat for a new global treaty to deal with the risks to the future of humanity. There is growing dissent in China. It is the right time to strike when the iron is hot by launching a psy-war campaign against the CPC and Xi.

(Writer: Anil Gupta; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

*Well, we don’t really know if he is dead. Various theories are doing the rounds at the moment

The strange thing about the Kim clan is that according to a legend, they are all descendants of Princess Suriratna, who travelled from a distant kingdom to marry the progenitor of the tribe. If you believe the legend, she came from Ayodhya. Yes, that very same Ayodhya that we know of. Of course, this does not explain anything about the Kim dynasty of North Korea, which ruled like kings in that isolated yet nuclear-capable rogue nation. The founder of the dynasty, Kim Il-Sung, apparently descended from heaven at Mount Paektu, a “holy mountain” near the Korean-Chinese border. The creation myth of the clan obviously borrows from religious texts because the one mistake that most people make is considering North Korea to be a communist State. It may be the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, but in reality the best term to describe North Korea’s governance system is to call it a “theocratic monarchy” where the word of Kim is the law.

That brings us to the latest Kim in the chain, the grandson of the founder, Kim Jong-un and the younger son of Kim Jong-Il. While there is little news about Kim Jong-un of late, with sources in Seoul and Washington contradicting each other and a studied silence from Beijing, one can assume that things are not exactly hunky-dory in Pyongyang. We do not know whether the North Korean leader is dead or not but we must assume he has been incapacitated to some degree. But why are we getting so edgy about his whereabouts? Of course, because he is the leader of a tiny country but boasts of an active and advanced nuclear weapons programme. This brings us to the question, who next for the Kim dynasty? The smart money is on Kim Yo-Jong, Kim Jong-un’s younger sister. We already know that male primogeniture is not the way the clan operates as Kim Jong-un  removed his elder (half) brother Kim Jong-Nam through one of the most bizarre assassinations in history at the Kuala Lumpur airport. But then there is “the uncle,” Kim Pyong-Il, who was brought back to Pyongyang last year after being sidelined for almost a decade as Ambassador to various nations. But any intelligence official, who knows what is going on in North Korea, is possibly just as clueless as you or me. The fact is that we have no idea of what will happen next and if Kim Jong-un is really dead or he is just undead. Sorry for the pun but we are still watching events to see who is next to sit on the Kim throne.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

As we grapple with the pandemic, one wonders what happened to the world health watchdog and global governance structures that were built in order to counter this sort of crisis

In the months during which the Coronavirus outbreak has been afoot, it has laid bare the vulnerability and helplessness of an interdependent and interlinked world to the ravages that can be unleashed by a rapidly spreading novel communicable disease. The question one asks at this moment is, why is this so?

What happened to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the global governance structures that were built in order to counter this sort of crisis? Didn’t the world learn anything from the earlier outbreaks of communicable diseases like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Swine flu (H1N1) and so on? The entire healthcare governance at the global level simply crumbled like a house of cards. There is complete disarray and confusion around the world, when ideally global protocols should have been in place to control the spread of the disease.

What has been witnessed during the pandemic is that countries have tended to act independently. More in tune with their domestic requirements (cultural pride, market demands and so on) rather than in a coordinated fashion as part of a global governance network.

On the one hand, the Chinese authorities had sought to suppress information regarding the appearance of the new virus (by some accounts the Chinese are still hiding the real numbers), while on the other hand a unified response to the disease, which was expected from the world and international institutions like the WHO (once its gravity became evident) was completely absent and is absent even today.

Nothing highlights the lack of coordination between countries better than the testing regime for the Coronavirus initiated by South Korea and the US. While South Korea made the testing of CoVID-19 free for its citizens, in the US testing was a paid endeavour in the initial days, which resulted in delayed identification of infected individuals and led to the rapid spread of the disease.

While the Chinese may be at fault in their failure to warn the world about the outbreak of the highly infectious disease right at its onset, their propaganda is correct to an extent that the developed world, with all its technological prowess, has surrendered before the Coronavirus. This begs the question, what has caused the failure of global healthcare governance?

The WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared CoVID-19 as a pandemic (rather late in the day) and asked countries to undertake preventive and protective public health measures that “strike a fine balance between protecting health, preventing economic and social disruption and respecting human rights.”

The WHO, while rightly emphasising the need to respect human rights, appears to have simply laid the responsibility of containing the pandemic along with the responsibility of preventing social and economic disruption, on national healthcare systems, which are patchy and inefficient in most of the developing countries.

Ideally it should have been at the forefront of the Corona war, advising countries on the protocols that needed to be followed. Instead its response was slow, confused and inconsistent. It doesn’t take a genius to imagine what the situation in developing countries would be when developed countries with better healthcare systems were unable to contain the virus.

As the pandemic has shown us, the spread of a contagion in any major economy will have reverberating effects on the entire global economy. Thus it cannot be the job of national governments alone to halt the spread of disease. It has to be a joint effort between the countries with the global health watchdog leading from the front.

However, the statement of the Director-General, which came out rather belatedly, was in the form of a recommendation rather than a concrete plan of action for nations to follow. It indicated a complete lack of power to effectively engage in governance of healthcare around the world and adopt a leadership role in the hour of crisis.

The reason behind the incapacity of the WHO to effectively engage in global healthcare governance appears to be the North-South divide that permeates international relations. This invisible line has divided the world into the global developing South, which comprises the underdeveloped and developing countries and the wealthy, industrialised North.

The countries of the global South are plagued with problems, in differing measure, of poverty, lack of respect for human rights, absence of democratic governance and so on, along with a deep distrust of the industrialised countries, who are perceived to be ready to use every instrument to control policy-making of the developing nations, for their own economic gains.

The developed countries, in the industrialised North on the other hand, have either left the global South to its devices or are attempting to provide strait-jacketed solutions to problems, instead of sharing the global governance space with them, in which an acceptable solution to the problems of the global   South could be arrived at.

This exclusion of the South from participation has further fuelled the perception that developed countries are only interested in subverting governance of developing nations for their own economic gains. CoVID-19 has rudely awakened the world to the fact that the dividing line between the global North and South is not so wide as it appears to be and the North cannot ignore the problems of the South — be it human rights violations or poor healthcare — as something alien to them.

What is the solution then? The existing global governance architecture has fallen woefully short in managing the interdependencies and integration between countries. This is partly due to the speed of globalisation which accentuates these interdependencies and partly due to the Westphalian principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States.

What is required at this juncture is a novel governance model which is based on international cooperation. This governance model should respect sovereignty but only to the extent that it does not cause hindrance in addressing transnational challenges that may require a global coordinated response.

Global governance implicitly mandates a certain level of international intervention which is contrary to the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention in each other’s affairs. In addition, this governance model would also have to address the asymmetries existing in the present structure of governance which lead to a participation deficit of developing countries in global norm creation, thereby accentuating inequalities between nations.

This new model should genuinely attempt to fulfill the mandate of Article III of the United Nations Charter which provides that there should be “international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”

In the case of the present pandemic, while it is obvious that China is squarely to be blamed for the mayhem around the globe, the immediate requirement is that the WHO as an international organisation should be reformed as has been stated by the US, India and Australia.

The need for global healthcare governance has to be realised and the WHO should be vested with this responsibility.

For discharging this duty, the WHO should be provided with the necessary financial and human resources to address the issue of governance of healthcare around the world. The administration of the WHO should be made more broad-based and representative of global realities by increasing the participation of the global South in the organisation.

At a political level, it may be provided with similar administrative powers as are available to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) where it can direct a proper course of action instead of merely making recommendations that the countries may or may not follow.

Dilution of political borders is a reality and not just in the field of politics, finance and cyberworld but in the field of social and physical integration. The problems of countries, starting with basic healthcare, have to be addressed at a global level.

The earlier the world, both the and South, realises this, the better it would be for everyone around.

(Writer: VEER, MAYANK, NIDHI SAXENA ; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

For those who will survive the Covid-19 era, it will be another chance to look at the fundamentals of a civilised life

One of the biggest industries currently is forecasting the future of a post-Coronavirus world. Various themes are being touted — “Revival to survival”, “Covid-19: A learning opportunity for higher education”, “Coping with uncertainty” and many more. The online world has seldom been so vibrant. Everyone has something to say. Right from psychiatrists, public opinion leaders, journalists, statisticians, industrial lobbyists and of course public speakers. The world is teeming with futurologists, forecasters and many more breeds yet to be named. The danger of anyone being proved wrong is very little because the future is not here yet.

However, one thing is certain, the passing away of the Coronavirus is not in doubt. One doesn’t have to be blessed with psychic powers to realise that like everything else “this too shall pass.”

The question therefore is not, if this shall pass, the question is when? And at what cost? It is the uncertainty of it all that is gripping, worrying and more. Since a large number of the vectors are asymptomatic and possible solutions are still in the works, one doesn’t know where it will strike, who it will strike and indeed when. As one prepares to go to the press, much is being made of the “silent carriers.” Anyone can be a vector, as the act of living requires human interaction. Some news channels will have us believe that wholesale vegetable markets are one of the major centres of virus exchange. Life cannot go on without vegetables, certainly not for as long a period as the present lockdown seems to be headed for. The moment vegetables are washed (an obvious wash is through food grade hydrogen peroxide), somebody promptly reminds us of the ill-effects of chemicals. And there another anxiety race starts.

Summer is almost upon us. Some might even argue that it has already arrived. In certain segments, a debate has been generated over the use of air conditioners. Apparently, the Central Public Works Department has even developed guidelines regarding the proper use of air conditioning and ventilation. It has thoughts on “how to operate air conditioning and ventilation systems to control the spread of the Coronavirus in residences, work spaces and healthcare facilities.” Social media is full of forwards on how a family in China got infected by the virus due to the use of air conditioners. Notwithstanding this, air conditioner servicing firms are swamped by calls as people want their cooling systems in working condition. In some residences/offices air conditioners are already being used. However, this is not the space to resolve these dilemmas over the use of air conditioners, visits to wholesale vegetable markets  and so on. But it is safe to say that there is no written record available of such uncertainty and anxiety affecting almost every part of the globe in the past. Even the animal kingdom has not been spared and there have been reports coming in of even felines, big cats in zoos and the ubiquitous alley kind, being affected by the Coronavirus.

Clearly, it is also a field day for fake news. This, again, may not be the best place for such a discussion and moreover, many news channels are already doing their bit to spread/dispel it. Be that as it may, a few things are gradually taking shape. As and when Covid-19 passes away, there will be an opportunity to rebuild the world. The contours of that world are currently confined to populist images of clear river waters, blue skies and pollution-free air (but the powers that be are recommending masks even at home going forward). The “power” of the prescription is rooted in the authority of the signatory. Some find it confusing but that would only be if they are looking for consistent “reason.” It is important to realise that there are many things in life which happen without an obvious “reason”, the way we understand the word.

Yet, given the prevailing environment, one would like to hazard a guess towards certain directions of growth in the near future. For one, the areas of dominance in the world of science will undergo some recalibration. The world of information technology will have strong competition from the field of pharmacology. In the coming few years, vaccines and medical devices will draw high talent. The nature of shipping itself may undergo a change. A possible reduction in ship-port calls may emerge. Warehousing as a business may experience a boom. Capacities of shipping through land, sea or air may need a serious review. Some of this may happen; some of this may get refracted.

As of now, certain things stare us in the face. Refineries are slowing down; there is a worldwide oil production cut. In certain cases, prices are down by nearly 90 per cent. Almost overnight, the thirst for oil has vanished as the world stays locked down.

Capital may not necessarily flow to large “sizes of canvas” but to the less-battered economies. For those who will survive the Covid-19 era, (and clearly many will), it will be another chance to look at the fundamentals of civilised life again. Till then patience cannot be an overrated virtue.

(Writer: Vinayshil Gautam; Courtesy: The Pioneer)