India must get real and finally engage with the Taliban if it wants to be strategically relevant in Afghanistan

India has finally decided to get real on Afghanistan and agreed to attend the signing ceremony of a landmark peace deal between the US and the Afghan Taliban in Doha, following which American troops would withdraw from the region. For years, we have invested in developing infrastructure and humanitarian missions in that nation but refused to connect with the Taliban, predicating its significance to our Pakistan-centric vision, and abhorring it simply because Pakistan was its patron. While we insisted on an Afghan-led reconciliation, fearing that the Taliban would magnify Pakistan’s proxy war in our backyard, the Taliban regained its influence. And though our western neighbour may still continue to have a hold over it, we have to build a bridge to avoid strategic alienation. Or allow the Taliban  to harden its outlook towards us. This is the reason why big powers like the US, Russia and Iran have been reaching out to the Taliban for geopolitical reasons. At least, India’s presence at the deal ceremony signals a willingness to engage, considering that we have lost much while being left out of the reconciliation process. We must also not stereotype the Taliban as an extension counter of Pakistan but recognise changes within it. It is now ready to engage with the world in consonance with diplomatic norms. One thing is clear, over the last three years, the Taliban has come to control almost half the territories and has changed its rules of engagement simply because it doesn’t want to be reviled or isolated, but wants acknowledgement and acceptance. Time and again, its spokespersons have expressed a desire to work with India, in a bid to shake off the dependency on Pakistan. More importantly, India’s allies in the region, both Russia and Iran, are cooperating with the Taliban and could play a mediatory role. 

Pakistan’s interests in Afghanistan will continue to be India-centric, trying to erode the goodwill of India’s development work by peddling its own insecurities about our hegemonic potential. It will also try to bring in the Taliban to expand the scope of its proxy war over Kashmir. Besides, Pakistan’s military establishment would want to deepen its proximity with the Taliban to quell its own separatist sentiments at home, like that of a unified Pashtunistan. If India wants stability in the region, then it must neutralise Pakistan’s chokehold on the Taliban and work separate back channels with it. It cannot rely on past understanding and rigidities. Ignoring the Taliban means empowering Pakistan. Besides, India’s consistent support to the democratically-elected Afghan presidents since 2001 — Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani — have completely lost its counterweight value. If the recent results of the Afghan election are any indication, then Ghani has a really thin margin of victory. Undoubtedly then, the Taliban is almost on an equal footing and is already questioning Ghani’s credibility. It is even attempting to talk to “intra-Afghan” factions, according to a statement by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. We may have scored high on our soft power capabilities and have acceptability among Afghan people but if we have to matter, then we must not be a reluctant neighbour. We must reach out to all players in Afghanistan but independently and without referencing others.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Though no major pacts were signed between the US and India, advancements were made in the important areas of defence, energy and partnership in the Indo-Pacific

Riding on the back of greater people-to-people connect, public opinion has had an increasingly critical role in shaping India-US relations, at least in the last two decades. Opinion ratings and endorsements of US President Donald Trump have reached an unprecedented high among the people in India, says a recent survey by Pew Research. This positive view of Trump surfaced most palpably during his recently-concluded visit to India. The spectacle in Motera stadium, the cultural symbolism of Mahatma Gandhi and the presidential welcome in New Delhi, all generated favourable public opinion for Indo-US relations.

On the face of it, Trump’s visit did not score very high as no major or new agreement was signed between the two countries — except for the $3 billion defence deal which is a small amount in the overall bilateral trade between the two countries. However, if we look beyond the surface, perhaps his visit served exactly the purpose it was intended to.

One of the most important developments signalling progress in bilateral relations was the elevation of ties to a Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership. Technically, it signifies a step forward in the already existing alliance between the two countries, albeit in a broader spectrum of cooperation and, perhaps, with globally-shared responsibilities.

In so far as concrete deliverables are concerned, advancements were made in three important areas; defence, energy and partnership in the Indo-Pacific. In the defence sector alone, the last three years have resulted in $70 billion worth of deals in bilateral defence aviation and technology sectors. During the visit, Trump finalised deals worth over $3.5 billion for six Apache attack helicopters worth $930 million and 24 Seahawk/Romeo helicopters worth $2.6 billion. India and the US also discussed the $1.9 billion deal for a missile defence system that would protect the Capital.

However, the bonhomie between the two leaders and the spectacle surrounding Trump’s visit overshadowed any sense of lost opportunity. On the trade front, although both sides showed confidence that an impending mega deal benefiting both the countries is around the corner, trade negotiations are not going to be easy. In fact, some of the steps from the US have signalled a hard negotiating position on trade — one that presses for greater market access in various sectors without reinstating our Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) status. The US also removed India from the list of developing nations that are exempt from investigations on whether they harm the American industry with unfairly-subsidised exports.

Besides, the US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer cancelled his visit to India due to unresolved differences between the two sides. What may have persuaded the Trump administration to persist with the trade talks is the rapidly-shrinking trade deficit with India, especially with rising energy imports. As such, the once $30 billion trade surplus of India has shrunk to $16 billion, thanks to its increasing energy imports from the US in recent times.

Besides, the energy sector is coming up as one of the most important areas of cooperation between the US and India and in the last four years, bilateral energy trade has risen to $20 billion. During Trump’s visit, ExxonMobil signed a deal to improve India’s natural gas distribution network so that the US can export even more Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to us. In the likely absence of any concrete trade deal, there are primarily two areas on which the bulk of the performance weight of the bilateral relations would rest: Defence cooperation and regional order in the Indo-Pacific, which received a thrust during Trump’s visit to India. More importantly, the defence deals have a practical significance for the Indo-Pacific region and are mutually reinforcing, given India’s security considerations in the region.

The 24 MH-60R Seahawk maritime helicopters by US-based Lockheed Martin are one of the best naval choppers today with anti-submarine capabilities, a feature that is expected to give more strategic depth in the Indo-Pacific to the Indian Navy. These helicopters can also be used for other purposes like anti-surface warfare and search and rescue operations.

The six Apaches, armed with Stinger air-to-air missiles, Hellfire Longbow air-to-ground missiles, guns and rockets are likely to pack considerable air power for the Indian Army. In the defence sector, India and the US also agreed to work towards an early conclusion of the fourth and final bilateral foundational military pact called the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation.

Furthering cooperation with India in the domain of the Indo-Pacific was a definitive plan of the Trump administration. This was depicted by the Blue Dot network push by him to rope India into the effort to “guarantee that the infrastructure of the future is built in a safe, transparent and accountable manner” in the Indo-Pacific region. Since countries like Australia and Japan are already partners to the Blue Dot network, India’s participation will further consolidate multilateral stakes there from a rules-based order perspective.

The Blue Dot network is intended to ensure that countries around the world  have access to private sector-led, sustainable and trustworthy options for high-quality infrastructure development. India and the US will look to consolidate the common views of a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific through this network. Convergences between the two nations are likely to grow, especially in the aftermath of the Raisina Dialogue 2020, where the US declared an expansive view of its Indo-Pacific strategy and included the Gulf in its vision for the region, which was hitherto excluded.

With China hit by an epidemic of unprecedented proportions, the consequences of which are yet to be assessed, the timing of Trump’s visit could be significant for the advancement of US-India combined views on the emerging Asian order. Trump’s visit was an important opportunity for both sides to take concrete steps in advancing the idea of the Indo-Pacific. While the Blue Dot network is an opportunity for India to embrace it, we need more clarity on its role in advancing the economic corridor as part of the regionally-envisaged connectivity vision.

The other critical issue to come up during Trump’s visit was the purpose and nature of the Quad partnership at the level of top leadership. These discussions were a natural follow-up after all four countries met at the ministerial level for the first time in a “significant elevation” of the dialogue advance cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region in September 2019. With Australia’s inclusion in the Malabar naval exercises around the corner, it is only imperative that the two largest powers in the  region, which are counterpoised to China, consolidate on this combined regional security architecture.

On global issues, while the issue of terrorism stuck out, a backchannel talk on Afghanistan found its place in the bilateral agenda. The internal situation in Afghanistan is at the cusp of a transformation with a US-Taliban deal likely to be signed in a matter of days. It is no secret that Trump wants India to play a larger role in Afghanistan’s security. With the recent announcement of the official results of the Afghan elections and the return of the Ghani Government in Kabul, a party which India recognises, New Delhi’s support “to do more” may have been underscored yet again by Trump.

The US might be aware that Afghanistan’s National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib, who was in New Delhi in January, asked India to consider deploying its troops in Afghanistan in a peacekeeping role. While Prime Minister Modi may have conveyed India’s concerns over the US deal with Afghanistan, such concerns may have been diluted by the US’ counter-concerns on Kashmir, New Delhi’s controversial domestic legislations and the violence in parts of the Capital, even as Trump was in Delhi.

(Writer: Vivek Mishra ; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Harvey Weinstein is convicted of third-degree rape and a criminal sexual act. He’s staring at just 5 years

The battle of justice for women, who take on rich and powerful men for molestation, or worse rape, is long, lonely and hard. No matter in which part of the globe they are, whether it is India, Pakistan, the UK or even the biggest and one of the most technologically-advanced Western countries in the world, the US. What else justifies the fact that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, who was accused by no less than 90 women of sex crimes, was convicted only in two cases whereas he was found guilty of raping one woman and committing a non-consensual sex act on another? It was imperfect justice because he was acquitted of the most serious charges — two counts of predatory sexual assault and one count of first-degree rape, which might have put him in a cell for the rest of his life. The jury only convicted him of third-degree rape and a first-degree criminal sexual act. So now he is looking at just five years in prison. And this was the man, who  throughout his long career as a film producer, had silenced multiple accusations of rape and sexual assault with threats, denials, character assassinations, monetary settlements and Non-Disclosure Agreements. He had even scared off journalists who tried to expose his dastardly acts and bring him to justice, till tenacious journalists from the New York Times and the New Yorker brought him down with their exposés in 2017.

However, the verdict is a small victory for women around the world battling hard against their sexual predators. The Unnao rape victim, who accused former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar of rape or the law student, who tried to bring former BJP MP Swami Chinmayanand to book for raping her repeatedly, would tell you at what personal peril they managed to be heard. Weinstein’s conviction is also a defeat of the most belligerent victim-shaming and blaming tactics that are used by ruthless defence lawyers in such cases. More importantly, it broke the stereotype of what a “perfect victim” is as justice was given to the two women who did not end their relationship with their tormentor simply because he was who he was. It is a small measure of vindication for the six women who testified that Weinstein attacked and sought to intimidate them as they were put through the grinder by his lawyers. They can now feel proud of the part they played in getting the predator put behind bars, where he belongs. It is also a victory for the #MeToo movement, which was fast classified as a fad than a cause.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

While the American First Lady’s role has evolved over the years, this is not the case in India. One just hopes that the spouses of future leaders of the country will come out from under the shadow of their husbands

The only visible programme arranged for the visiting US First Lady Melania Trump, apart from posing for photographs with the iconic Taj Mahal serving as a majestic backdrop and waving at the massive crowds lustily greeting the American First Couple in Ahmedabad, was a visit to a Delhi Government school on Tuesday. This was the first time that a US First Lady visited a school in India. The visit was arranged as Melania showed an interest in the “happiness curriculum” introduced by the Delhi Government as part of its innovative move to refine the education system. It was launched on July 2, 2018 in the presence of the Dalai Lama, to help students remain stress-free. The curriculum is being taught to an estimated 10 lakh students in over 1,000 schools. The daily 45-minute “happiness class” is usually the first period for students in classes I to VIII, while Kindergarten children have classes twice a week.

The “happiness curriculum” has become one of the showcase projects of the Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Government in the education sector. In October 2019 Dutch King Willem Alexander and Queen Maxima also witnessed a “happiness class.”

The US First Lady’s role is not restricted to being just decorative and has evolved significantly since the days of Martha Washington who played hostess to visiting dignitaries during George Washington’s presidency. They have always made use of their global visits in a positive manner.

Jacqueline Kennedy, who visited India in the ’60s made a terrific impression on the people.

Indians were also so enamoured by Rosalyn Carter and her husband Jimmy that the village of Chuma Kheragaon in Haryana was renamed Carterpuri in honour of their visit.  Hillary Clinton was a household name in the country and she continued her interest in India even after she ceased being the First Lady. Similarly, Michelle Obama enchanted India during her two visits.

Melania’s visit also generated quite a bit of interest as she was one of the most glamorous First Ladies to visit the country and her carefully-chosen outfits created quite a stir, with the fashion police appreciating two and dissing the third. However, apart from her obvious glamour quotient, she has kept a somewhat low profile. The Guardian newspaper once described Melania as “seldom seen and even more seldom heard. The former model may not be as popular as her predecessor Michelle Obama, but she is far more popular than her husband.”

Incidentally, many First Ladies have supported some special cause close to their hearts using their celebrity status. While Jacqueline Kennedy promoted American arts, Eleanor Roosevelt took up progressive causes, including civil liberties, Hillary Clinton came up with a new health plan, Laura Bush promoted literacy, Michelle Obama a better diets for children and so on. Melania Trump, too, focusses on issues affecting children.  In the past four years she has made multiple visits to schools — both in the US and abroad. From participating in a Viking huddle class, in Michigan, to taking the Queen of Jordan to Washington DC’s first public charter school for girls at Excel Academy, Melania showed her commitment to kids. During international trips, she has visited the American International School in Riyadh and took a calligraphy lesson with local children at a Kyobashi Tsukiji Elementary School with Akie Abe while visiting Japan. Melania is also involved in an initiative to help American children that she launched in May 2018. The awareness campaign, called “Be Best,” is dedicated to children’s well-being, cyberbullying and opioid abuse.

According to The New York Times, though President Trump tried to dissuade her from getting involved in the initiative, Melania stuck to the cause. The Palm Beach Atlantic University in Florida honoured her this month as its “2020 woman of distinction.” But Melania has faced criticism for not speaking out against her husband’s tweets and actions, like the controversial separation policy where children caught on the border were split up from their parents and kept at detention centres.

However, unlike the US, there have been few visible and active spouses of Indian presidents and prime ministers. Not much is known about the wives of Presidents Rajendra Prasad and S Radhakrishnan. Thankfully, VV Giri’s wife Saraswati Bai took up a more public role and Abida Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed became an MP twice. Pranab Mukherjee’s wife Suvra was unwell most of the time and Giani Zail Singh nominated his daughter as his hostess.

Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri’s wife Lalitha was more of a housewife and most of the others followed suit. However, Sonia Gandhi took interest in her role as the hostess and Manmohan Singh’s wife Gursharan Kaur was also more visible. PV Narasimha Rao declared his daughter as his hostess and the wives of IK Gujral and Deve Gowda kept a low profile.

Sadly, most of them did not utilise their position like the American First Ladies to promote any social cause or take active part in politics.

One just hopes that the spouses of future leaders of the country will come out from under the shadow of their husbands.

(Writer: Kalyani Shankar ; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Trump is show business and in Modi, he has found a kindred soul. But will anything meaningful come out of his visit?

Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 US presidential election will most likely be repeated in November this year, considering the rate at which things are moving with the Democrats. It isn’t surprising, therefore, that Governments across the world, no matter what their personal views on Trump, hitch their wagons to his train. But unlike other pragmatic leaders, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Trump appear to have a genuine bond, at least in public. The sight of the two men holding hands at the “Howdy Modi” event in  Texas dominated world media. It gave heartburn to Opposition politicians not only in India but to other leaders across the world, too. While parents teach their children that they should not look at friendships as quid pro quo arrangements, the fact is that India and the US need to leverage the relationship of the two leaders into something much more concrete. Of course, the strengthening of India-US defence collaboration is something that started under former Prime Minister  Vajpayee’s tenure and was reinforced by the UPA Government under Manmohan Singh. The Modi Government is building on that edifice. India will be buying more American hardware, including helicopters and air defence systems but the signature deal that Trump wants is in trade, which seems to be very far away at the moment. America wants access for its dairy products but India is understandably wary of cattle fed with hormones and animal matter over there. Besides, there’s also the need to protect Indian dairy farmers as we are the largest milk producer in the world. On the other hand, India wants access to American markets under favourable terms and the US has said that is only for “developing” nations and as a member of the G-20, India is hardly “developing.”

Irrespective of the failure to clinch a trade deal worth just a few dollars — one of the reasons why he is not bringing his key economic aide —Trump’s visit will also need the ruling Government to do some tough answering. His appearance today with Modi will take place under conditions when our Government has failed to pass the “religious” test. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA),  which calls for a religion-based code of identity, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the National Population Register (NPR), have put the nation on the boil, with protests refusing to die even two months after they started. The Government’s principle of challenging the very Constitution that called for “equality” of all religions by considering some to be less “Indian” than others, has led to several nations, even the UN, expressing concern over its authoritarian ways. The lockdown and detentions in Kashmir have caused much discomfort in the US, even among key Senators, who fear a subvention of democracy in the name of “Hindu India.” Allegedly, Trump has vowed not to miss this opportunity to address the issue and is bound to raise it both during his public remarks and certainly in private. He needs Pakistan to keep the Taliban in leash and will need to be seen as pushing some margins in Kashmir. If only as an arm-twisting tactic or to rile up Modi’s insecurities at a time when he wants to be seen as a hefty global leader. But we are hard-nosed, too, about business. So treat this as spectator sport; one of the biggest shows that India has ever seen. We could all laugh about the “10 million people”  gaffe but there will be more people than Trump has ever seen greeting him. But nothing of substance might come out of it.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

As that nation catches a cold, the world sneezes. But the virus spread has led to a revival of crucial sectors back home

The effects of Coronavirus, now called COVID-19 by the World Health Organisation (WHO), have mostly been contained along China’s borders. Beijing declared a war-like situation to deal with its spread. It shut down all its cities effectively and Wuhan, the centre of the outbreak, became a ghost town. Streets, that once bustled, wore a deserted look. According to data from Flightradar24, a flight tracking site, air traffic in China dropped by over 80 per cent since  the outbreak. Nevertheless, the spread of coronavirus forced the entire world to realise just how integral China is to the global supply chain, even when it does not produce finished products. Take the example of the Indian pharmaceutical sector, which is afraid that a shortage of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) that form the basis of many important medications, including anti-retroviral drugs used to manage HIV/AIDS, will start running out by mid-March. We are so dependent on China-sourced raw materials that they form almost 70 per cent of India’s imports of key ingredients for medicines. The potential damage this has caused to the sector cannot be wished away. Most importantly, domestic manufacturing is struggling to take off. But the long-term implications of the spread of the virus must not be missed and it has at least compelled the Government to reset its focus on local sourcing to offset the current supply disruption. In the pharma industry itself, a revival of old drug manufacturing units that once produced key ingredients for crucial medicines is on the cards. In other sectors such as automobiles, a complete shutdown in China is expected to lead to a shortage of fuel-injectors and electronic control units among other devices that are essential to meet the new BS-VI emission norms that come into force nationwide on April 1. In sectors like paints and plastics, China supplies essential dyes used for colouring. Industry insiders have warned that production lines in various sectors as also across the country will come to a screeching halt if supplies do not restart by the middle of next month. And even if they come back into the market, it might take six to eight weeks for fresh products to be shipped from China to India. The situation is so dire that even the Central Government has said that the Coronavirus outbreak can be considered a force majeure on contracts and that it can even be classified as an act of God for vendors so as to negate penalties if delivery schedules are not met. Logistical experts are working overtime to ensure once supplies start, delays at ports and at Customs points are minimised.

While there is no firm outline as to when production will restart at factories, the Chinese Government has announced that production units in Wuhan will remain shuttered till early March at the very least. However, manufacturing can happen around Beijing and the Pearl River Delta, possibly with limited production by next week. The Coronavirus outbreak must serve as a warning for Indian industries to diversify their supply chains. The Indian Government, too, must start encouraging production of critical components within the country. While this is an extreme situation, it has exposed Indian vulnerabilities to Chinese supplies. The latter is the former’s top non-oil trading partner. But statements from the Chinese Government concerning Arunachal Pradesh prove that it is still inimical to India’s interests, even if, at least once, it did support our stance against Pakistan at the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) pertaining to the farce surrounding Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar. While we live in a globalised world and it is impossible for a single nation to do everything for itself, India must use the COVID-19 outbreak as an opportunity to protect its industrial interests. This will be in the world’s greater interests as well.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Shutting down N-power plants only to replace them with coal burning is the height of illogic. Nobody is as crazy as the Germans and the Japanese

Germany and Japan are finally winning a war together. Unfortunately, it is the “war on rationality.” Coal, as everybody knows, is by far the most damaging source of energy we use, in terms of both the harm to human beings and the impact on the climate. It’s twice as bad as natural gas and dozens of times worse than solar or nuclear or wind power. Yet both Germany and Japan have been building a lot of new coal-fired power stations. But why are they still betting on coal?

Would it upset you if I said it’s because they are, despite their apparent sophistication, superstitious peasants at heart? Well, go ahead and get upset. Germany still gets more than a third of its energy from burning coal and most of it is ultra-polluting lignite or “brown” coal. Solar, wind, geo-thermal and hydropower generation provide just 17 per cent of the country’s electricity needs.  If most of Germany’s 17 nuclear powers had not been shut down after 2012 (the last are scheduled to close within two years), then at least half the coal would not have been needed.

There had been an active anti-nuclear power movement in Germany for some time but what triggered the 2012 decision to shut the entire sector down was the Fukushima disaster of the previous year. I am deliberately avoiding the words “calamity”, “disaster” and “catastrophe” because while the Fukushima tsunami killed 19,000 people, the subsequent problem with the four nuclear reactors on the coast killed nobody. Yet, the German people, or at least a large number of German anti-nuclear activists, insisted that any nuclear reactor anywhere was a mortal danger and the Government agreed to shut all nuclear plants down. The country pulled a 180 and decided to embark on ending its use of nuclear power entirely.

The same thing happened in Japan. The Japanese planners were foolish to put four reactors on the coast in a region where earthquakes and consequent tsunamis were to be expected from time to time. What needs to be condemned is the decision of the planners and not nuclear power. Nevertheless, all 50 Japanese nuclear reactors, which accounted for 30 per cent of the country’s electrical power, were immediately shut down.

The Japanese are not as blindly dogmatic as the Germans: Two of those nuclear plants reopened in 2015 and seven more resurfaced recently. A further 17 are in the lengthy process of restart approval. So by 2030, the Japanese Government hopes to be getting 20 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power again. But that’s only half the amount of nuclear power that Japan originally planned to make available by 2030. The gap between 20 per cent and the planned 40 per cent of the country’s energy needs will be made up by burning coal.

Japan recently announced that it plans to build 22 new coal-burning power plants in the next five years. Its Government has argued that these coal plants use ultra-supercritical boilers that are vastly more energy-efficient and pollute less per unit of energy. But these plants still emit greenhouse gases and are a non-starter for activists who want the world to zero out carbon emissions.

This is deeply irresponsible behaviour and the worst thing is that the decision-makers know it. They are just deferring to public opinion, which in this instance is entirely wrong. The “superstitious peasants” should really be frightened of global warming, for which coal-burning is a major driver, not of relatively harmless nuclear power.

That’s not to say that nuclear power is the solution to all our problems, or even most of them. It is generally the most expensive option because it costs so much to build the reactors and the associated controls and safety devices. Indeed, nuclear is no longer cost-competitive with other “clean” sources of power like wind and solar.

So there is a case for not building any more nuclear power stations, at least in regions and countries that have ample resources in terms of sun and wind. But there is no case for shutting down existing nuclear stations and burning more coal to make up the difference. That is so stupid, it verges on the criminal.

Other countries can be idiotic, too. Due to an administrative glitch, Chinese provinces are currently building hundreds of unnecessary coal-fired power stations that may never be used, since the Central Government expects the country’s coal use to peak this year — and most existing Chinese coal plants already sit idle more than half of the time.

China is using coal power financing as a key element of its Belt and Road Initiative to expand its economic and political influence throughout Asia and Africa. Both Japan and China are now racing to secure lucrative construction contracts in developing countries to expand their strategic reach.

At least China is also building nuclear plants as fast as it can. Last year, it accounted for more than half the world’s output of solar panels. (On the other hand, it is providing work for the Chinese construction industry by building a planned 300 coal-fired power stations in other countries, presumably on the unspoken assumption that carbon dioxide emissions elsewhere won’t affect China’s climate.)

But nobody is as crazy as the Germans and the Japanese, who have been shutting down nuclear plants and replacing them with coal-fired plants. France will close its last coal-fired station in 2022 and Britain will do the same in 2025. But Germany says 2038 and Japan just says “eventually.” That’s far too late: By then the die will be cast and the world will be committed to more than 2oC of warming.

(Writer: Gwynne Dyer; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Over-the-top preps for Trump visit invite criticism. Do the poor need to be swept under the carpet?

At one end, there is the propagandist accusation that we do not own our Indianness enough as a people or aren’t proud of it. On the other end, there is this relic of a colonial obsession, rather subservience, to please the White world. What else explains our bending backwards to roll out the red carpet for US President Donald Trump? To begin with, the Yamuna will be flowing as it should, clean and swirling, for the day that Trump is going to be here. The Uttar Pradesh Government will be releasing 500 cusecs of water to clear the river of contaminants and toxic waste, making what usually is a smelly canal look like a river. On other days, Delhiites only deserve the sewage drain avatar. The one-day wonder is supposed to make us feel proud of living in a waterfront city. Poor monkeys are being chased off the Taj Mahal stretch. And in Ahmedabad, where the POTUS will be landing first, masons are hastily finishing a half-a-kilometre wall along the stretch between the Ahmedabad airport and Gandhinagar to shut off our putrid slums from the eyeline of a speeding limousine. While authorities defend the social barrier as one prompted by security concerns, the real intention is not lost, ensuring pleasing visuals of Indian exotica and a swachch Bharat to one of the most important men on the planet. As if that would soften his stand on trade ties with India. Apparently eviction notices have been served to 45 families living in another slum near the biggest cricket stadium that Trump is gushing about. Following the mantra of Atithi Devo Bhava is one thing but disowning our truths is quite the other. Yes, India as an emergent economy with a massive population has its own warts, inequities and dualities to live with. But why deny our composite existence or be insensitive to the lesser privileged? For in the end by walling off our imperfections into ghettos, we end up reinforcing old stereotypes instead of changing them and perpetuate Western biases. By acknowledging the existence of the underlings, we give them dignity, prize their contribution to society and mainstream them as a reality that has to be dealt with, not hidden away. Of course, other than the very Indian affliction of undervaluing ourselves while putting our best foot forward, there is the other problem of sustaining the myth of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s development work in his own State as Chief Minister. And a gaping slum certainly wouldn’t be a glorious ode to his helmsmanship in that capacity for 12 years. So the Modi Government is going all out to strengthen its leadership credentials even if possibilities of a trade deal with the US look remote, particularly over the thorny issue of dairy exports.

The Modi Government has gone to the extent of pulling out all stops to reinforce a crafted image of the country and promote its leadership credentials before Trump. Contracts worth Rs 85 crore, from the construction of the stadium, which supposedly has the maximum seating capacity, to the beautification of cities, have gone out to various agencies. The depreciation has already begun with Trump tweeting dissatisfaction over the way India-US ties have shaped up over trade, a clear indication that war on that front will be hard-nosed no matter what the trimmings. Questions are also being raised about Gujarat being chosen simply because it is the Prime Minister’s home State. Others are wondering if it wasn’t better for the makeover funds to have been diverted to slum cluster improvements instead. Simply on qualifiers, there were other “better-looking” States. Gujarat was ranked 22nd among Indian States in the human development index for 2018. The Maternal Mortality Rate was 91 per 1,00,000 live births in 2016 as compared to 66 in Tamil Nadu and 88 in Telangana in the same year. According to crime data, the suicide rates there due to poverty increased by 162 per cent in 2018. Last year, the UK, too, rolled out the red carpet for Trump for a formal State visit, provoking protests from none other than the London mayor who said that such treatment shouldn’t be extended to someone whose “behaviour flies in the face of the ideals America was founded upon — equality, liberty and religious freedom.” He had even highlighted Trump’s endorsement of far-Right nationalism, picking on minority groups and the marginalised to manufacture an enemy. Perhaps, there’s a commonality of perception here that doesn’t make Trump look like so much of an oddity in the first place. One would have understood if the “good friend” vibes resulted in friendly deals. But other than “feel good” vibes, which have been around anyway because of improved diplomatic ties of the last couple of years, this gush seems a tad too obsequious.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

By throwing his weight behind Islamabad on the Kashmir issue, Erdogan unambiguously signalled his intention to emerge as the imam of the new Caliphate he hopes to lead

Even if we overlook the facts about which nation is “occupying” Kashmir, by stating that there is “no difference between Gallipoli and occupied Kashmir”, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan unambiguously signalled his intention to emerge as the “imam” of the new (pseudo) Caliphate he hopes to lead by 2023, the centenary of the Turkish Republic. Addressing a joint session of Pakistan’s Parliament (February 14), he lauded sacrifices made by it in the war on terror and the “positive contributions” it made to the Afghanistan peace process and promised support during the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) meet in Paris (February 16-21, 2020). His denunciation of US President Donald Trump’s Mideast plan hints at an eventual challenge to Riyadh in the region.

Erdogan’s determination to restore the Caliphate has created a visible schism between the Arab States formally led by Saudi Arabia and the non-Arab States led by Turkey. A nascent axis is discernible between Turkey, Malaysia and Pakistan; Iran and Qatar complete the anti-Riyadh alignment. Erdogan declared in February 2018, “The Republic of Turkey is a continuation of the Ottoman Empire… the essence is the same, soul is the same…”

Unsurprisingly, Ankara has emerged as the new hub for anti-India activities by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Unknown to most people, Turkey has universal jurisdiction laws as part of its domestic laws. Article 13 of the Turkish Penal Code states, “Turkish law shall apply to” the crime of torture “committed in a foreign country whether or not committed by a citizen or non-citizen.”

Khalistanis tried to invoke these laws. Sikhs for Justice, a group working for a referendum (“Referendum 2020”) to create Khalistan, is believed to be funded by the ISI. In October 2018, its legal advisor, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, filed a case against Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh when he visited Turkey to pay homage at Gallipoli to soldiers from the First Patiala Infantry Regiment (now 15 Punjab), who lost their lives in World War I, on the centenary of the Great War.

Pannun went to Gallipoli to secure an arrest warrant and restrain the Punjab Chief Minister from leaving Turkey. As the Captain was on a non-official trip, he lacked diplomatic immunity as under the Vienna Protocol, only the Prime Minister and External Affairs Minister are “protected persons” when abroad in personal capacity. In Pakistan, Erdogan lauded a 1915 rally in Lahore, led by Allama Iqbal, where people from present-day Pakistan supported the Turkish people and blatantly ignored the sacrifices made by Indian soldiers at Gallipoli (Battle of Çanakkale), possibly because the bells tolled for the Ottoman Empire.

Turkey’s domestic laws explain why ex-IAS officer Shah Faesal was going to Turkey on August 14, 2019, soon after the Centre abrogated Article 370 and divided the State of Jammu & Kashmir into the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. It is possible that some foreign mentors asked Faesal to invoke these laws in Turkey. He was to file a case of human rights violations against Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, the then Chief of Army Staff Gen Bipin Rawat and others, on behalf of his political party, Jammu & Kashmir People’s Movement (JKPM).

Media reports stated that from Ankara, Faesal was likely to try to take the Kashmir issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague, the Netherlands. But this would not take off for want of jurisdiction; no individual can file a case in the ICJ, only States can. Of course, his arrival in the Netherlands would be embarrassing for India.

But if Faesal really wanted to go to The Hague, he could have taken a direct flight to Amsterdam. His plan was to exploit Turkey’s Article 13 universal jurisdiction law. Some human rights NGO would receive him at Ankara, where he would be lionised as a civil service topper (2010) and Harvard alumni who quit a Government job to protest against the activities of the Indian State in Kashmir. Actually Faesal resigned from the service in January 2019 in order to enter politics. However, the sudden split of Jammu & Kashmir and freeze on political activity nixed his unborn political career, leaving NGO activism his only alternative.

Had he reached Ankara, the international media would have splashed Kashmir on the front pages of all important newspapers and magazines and the Indian media would follow suit, thus making Faesal the global face of the anti-India Islamic movement. Once he managed to file a case in Turkey, Islamabad would almost certainly have followed up by filing a case against India at the ICJ, where it has suffered reverses in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case.

However, Faesal’s mentors could not anticipate the lookout notices for Kashmiris trying to leave the country; he was caught at the airport, sent back to Srinagar and placed in preventive custody. He has now been booked under the Public Safety Act (February 15).

This argument can be corroborated from Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s tweet on August 15, 2019, where he invoked Srebrenica, site of the 1995 genocide of over 8,000 Bosnians by the Bosnian Serb Army led by Ratko Mladic. Khan tweeted: “Will the world silently witness another Srebrenica-type massacre and ethnic cleansing of Muslims in IOK? I want to warn the international community if it allows this to happen, it will have severe repercussions and reactions in the Muslim world setting off radicalisation and cycles of violence.” The talk of “massacre and ethnic cleansing” of Kashmiri Muslims is, of course, pure bunkum but the tweet suggests an ISI hand in the aborted Turkish escapade.

Meanwhile, Erdogan has been cultivating separatist, religious and business leaders and Islamic groups in Kashmir after the tweaking of Article 370; this goes deeper than his traditional support to Pakistan at the Organisation of Islamic Conference. Previously also, he supported Pakistan in the FATF. While addressing the UN General Assembly on September 25, 2019, he chided the international community for not paying proper attention to Kashmir over the past seven decades.

Interestingly, soon after the FATF and UNGA meetings, the Indian Overseas Congress headed by Rahul Gandhi loyalist Sam Pitroda opened an office in Istanbul in November 2019. Possibly the Congress hopes to recover its once-committed Muslim vote bank by cultivating the emerging Caliphate; the repercussions on India’s internal affairs will need careful observation.

(Writer: Sandhya Jain; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Only history can reveal the source of coronavirus. But the crucial issue facing China today is how the people perceive the communist regime’s response to the disaster

The world is going through tumultuous times. China, too, has not been spared. A dreaded virus has struck the Middle Kingdom and there’s no end in sight for the epidemic though it seems to be spreading at a slower pace outside Wuhan, its epicenter. The epidemic has strange collaterals. In usual times, internet and social networks are kept under close watch by the communist State and any “reactionary” or “anti-Government” post is deleted immediately. Ever since the outbreak of the virus, monitoring has been extended to topics that are usually out of the purview of the censor.

Recently, netizens received a notice from Douban, a popular Chinese social network, which said, “The news you posted has been removed as it contains radical, political or ideological content.” It referred to the lyrics of the Chinese national anthem, which starts: “Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves! With our flesh and blood, let us build a new Great Wall! From each one, the urgent call to action comes forth. Arise!”

Indeed, it is a revolutionary song … one that is dangerous for the ruling party in the present context as it evokes fears of a popular revolt against the way the Government has been handling the spread of the coronavirus. Take the case of Dr Li Wenliang, one of the first doctors who alerted the public about the outbreak. When Dr Li sounded the alarm in December, he was severely reprimanded by the local authorities. And when he passed away, the Wuhan Central Hospital first denied his death, triggering deep anger among the public.

Bill Bishop, the author of the well-informed Sinocism newsletter, noted: “Social media is blowing up the news that Wuhan whistleblower doctor Li Wenliang has died …but in a morbid twist, it appears that the relevant authorities, probably after seeing the online uproar, may not be allowing him to die officially yet.” The regime’s hesitation to announce Dr Li’s death showed the dilemma the communist party is faced with.

During the first month after the outbreak of the virus, China lost two battles. First, it was unable to foresee the seriousness of the epidemic (on the contrary, for a month, it tried to hide the truth from the public). Second, it lost control over the information warfare, which was then led by the citizens. China has now decided to retake the initiative on the information battlefield even as it uses the toughest possible preventive measures on the ground to manage the fallout of the coronavirus. This, at the risk of facing an economic slowdown.

On February 10, Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the communist party, reappeared (with a mask) on the stage after several days of absence and spoke of “resolutely winning the people’s war against pneumonia epidemic.” According to Xinhua, Xi asserted that the situation remained very serious but expressed confidence that “China will certainly obtain a full victory in the fight against the epidemic.”

At Ditan Hospital in Beijing, Xi talked to medical workers of three hospitals in Wuhan via video conference and praised the work done by them. He said, “Wuhan is a heroic city and people of Hubei and Wuhan are heroic people who have never been crushed by any difficulty and danger in history.”

Xi’s return seems to be a well-orchestrated move to regain the initiative. The Chinese President was pompously termed as the “commander of the people’s war against the epidemic.” Before disappearing, he chaired a meeting with the Politburo Standing Committee. Here, he stressed that the party should “do a good job in propaganda education and public opinion guidance.”

HK01, a Hong Kong-based online news portal, said that such guidance must include “promoting in-depth publicity about the major decisions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, substantially reporting the effectiveness of the joint (epidemic) prevention and control measures in different regions and different departments, vividly telling touching stories about China’s fight against the epidemic and demonstrating the Chinese people’s spirit and the great power of unity and togetherness in fighting the epidemic.”

As a result, Zhang Xiaoguo, Director of the Information Bureau of the CCP Central Propaganda Department, announced that his department would send 300 reporters to Hubei province. The WeChat account of “Reporters Station” said that the scribes, besides providing reports on the epidemic prevention and control, “will present positive stories on humanity to the public to strengthen the guidance of public opinion.”

At the same time, authoritarian methods have been put in place. CNN mentioned, “They (Chinese authorities) are turning to a sophisticated authoritarian playbook honed over decades of crackdowns on dissidents and undesirables to enforce quarantines and lockdowns across the country”. The US channel spoke of a shift in the narrative “from a story of an entire country pulling together in a time of crisis to a darker tale of bad actors undermining efforts to keep people safe and spreading the virus through their own irresponsibility.”

The “Li Wenliang effect” had to be rectified by massive propaganda. The Globe, the Canadian media group, observed: “Stung by public criticism as the Wuhan virus outbreak continues to claim lives, Chinese authorities have reinvigorated the state hero-making machine, with official media promoting stories of sacrifice, dedication and love in arduous times.”

Meanwhile, Xu Zhangrun, a law professor at the Tsinghua University in Beijing who has been under suspension, blamed the communist party leaders for putting politics ahead of the people. He wrote a strongly-worded piece that was published on overseas Chinese language websites. He said, “The political system has collapsed under the tyranny and a governance system [made up] of bureaucrats, which has taken [the party] more than 30 years to build, has floundered.”

Only history can reveal the source of the virus — whether it is animal-borne or originated from a laboratory working on a covert biological weapons programme. The crucial issue today is how people perceive the regime’s response to the disaster. This is the real battle in China at present. Since 1978, the current dynasty in China has managed to bring some wealth and well-being to the masses but in the process, the Chinese people have lost their freedom to think freely. In every corner of the Kingdom, they are recognised by cameras, which record the most intimate details of their life. They have no choice but to follow the words of the party. With the novel coronavirus still spreading wildly, the system has started showing its limits. More propaganda cannot undo the much-needed political reforms in China.

(Writer: Claude Arpi; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

The Imran Khan Government has jailed global terrorist Hafiz Saeed yet again to wriggle out of the FATF grey list

This is as anodyne as it can get, Pakistan imprisoning globally proscribed terrorist and mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attacks Hafiz Saeed. For the nth time. That too on terror-financing charges. Clearly, Pakistan is indulging in another round of tokenism to escape severe action by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the anti-money-laundering watchdog, something which would cost it international aid. With consistent lobbying, it managed to win over the monitoring panel recently when its members expressed satisfaction over its corrective compliances and counter-terrorism efforts. The crackdown on Saeed is another demonstrable tradeoff tool, with fringe benefits. This time he has been charged with routing money through his charity organisations, Jamaat-ud-Dawa’ah (JuD) and Falah-e-Insaniat, both fronts that funded his militant group  Lashkar-e-Tayyeba (LeT). This is not the first time that Saeed, the arrowhead of Pakistan’s proxy war with India, has become a scapegoat to pacify world opinion at our behest. As and when there has been a concerted push against global terrorism, Pakistan has kept Saeed in and out of detention on various charges and even put him under house arrest, eight times since 2001, according to the US House foreign affairs committee. While these made for temporary optics, he has been roaming around that country at will. Not only that, Pakistan has abetted the mutation of several terrorist networks, eliminating them the moment their names have been put under the scanner and recasting them as new outfits. The charity route through socio-religious bodies is also tried and tested, with no means of tracking specific use of each grant that is funnelled through several conduits except those listed deliberately to deflect attention from the clandestine operatives. Remember, Saeed was also arrested last July and no less than US President Donald Trump — amping up Pakistan’s instrumentality in negotiating with the Taliban — had publicly scaled up a routine affair, saying it was possible only after a 10-year search. Neither has Saeed appeared broken or in retreat. In fact, before he was confined to his premises in 2017, he held a press conference on continuing jihad in Kashmir, exclaiming, “This order has travelled from New Delhi to Washington and then finally to Islamabad.” This is no different from Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, who has made a habit of attributing every Western admonition of its excesses to pressure from India and its status as a significant market. Given these precedents, the latest move is also nothing but a hogwash.

Except that the endorsement of Pakistan should worry us a bit more this time, particularly now that US Senators are keeping a close watch on the lockdown in Kashmir and have even written to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to address it during the Trump visit to India. With Pakistan under review at FATF, the Kashmir issue is unwittingly being drawn into the discourse as a counterweight. Alice Wells, the top US diplomat for South Asia, who had expressed concern over continued detentions and internet shutdown in Kashmir, has now lauded Pakistan “in meeting its international commitments to combat terrorist financing.” Clearly, the US needs Pakistan for the Afghan pullout and bending the Taliban. It may also be yielding ground at FATF as freezing aid to Pakistan might just aggravate the economic instability in the region and have a cascading impact on politics. But at the last round of FATF, India’s was the lone voice of protest against the lenient view on Pakistan. Even the European Union (EU) and Japan were convinced by our neighbour. If indeed it gets out of the grey list, it can avail international funding and the conduits to Kashmir could be red hot again, not that they had stopped completely. Besides, the Pakistani economy is not exactly stuttering, Moody’s upgrading its status from negative to stable, its Arab benefactors investing and even Russia keen to put money in north-south gas pipelines. Global penalties won’t impact Pakistan’s proxy war with India; the Government-military configuration will always keep that on the boil, prioritising it as a strategic interest. Even while staying on the FATF watch, there has been no cessation of terrorist infiltration into Kashmir. A listing won’t change that ground reality. At the same time, India has to ensure that there is no change in the international opinion of “Kashmir is a bilateral issue” argument, the pin-pricking offers of mediation by Trump notwithstanding. The Government needs to demonstrate some optics, too, in assuaging criticism both in the US and EU, both of which are being pushed uncomfortably on human rights in Kashmir. Our hardening stance would mean that the world will relax its posturing towards our neighbour.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)