The recent fire outbreak at the Notre Dame broke millions of hearts around the world, but assurances of it being rebuilt are having a calming effect
Paris is the most visited city in France, the most popular destination for tourists across the world. So while the Eiffel Tower and Arc de Triomphe are the most popular icons of this city, there is also the Notre Dame Cathedral on a small island on the Seine river, which is an example of the Gothic architecture of the medieval ages and a sign of how the Frankish people started to assert their identity as French. It is visited by millions annually, the famous stained glass and gargoyles on the structure becoming iconic in their own right. It has been at the centre of French life for centuries, having played a role during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era. The great general was coronated there. Few Western capitals with the exception of London are so closely identified with their religious centres.
Even though religion and religious adherence are on the downside across France let alone its wild Capital, home to shows like Moulin Rouge which are hardly something the Catholic Church would approve of, the sight of the church’s spire collapsing in an inferno must have been deeply disheartening. It is a miracle that the main stone structure of the Cathedral itself managed to be saved. And President Macron, who held an extraordinary national address dressed in black, assured that the Cathedral would be rebuilt. The religious allegory was not lost on many with the fire occurring days before Good Friday, the day the Christians believe that Christ was crucified. And with several French billionaires and entrepreneurs putting their hands up and opening their wallets, donating millions to the rebuilding of the structure, it is heartening to see that the French are willing to rebuild what was lost. And many of the millions of global citizens who have visited Paris over the years are also contributing small sums towards the rebuild. Several crowd-funding initiatives have been started.
This fire should also come as a warning sign in a country like India where several monuments of archaeological note are in an awful state of disrepair and may not survive a fire like the one Notre Dame suffered. A fire at the Meenakshi Temple last year was almost fatal for the heritage site. India’s cultural heritage is also part of the world’s cultural heritage and this fire should be a wake-up sign. The French firefighters followed a proper procedure in saving the Cathedral. One wonders if such procedures exist at the Taj or other monuments, many of which are surrounded by small illegal shops and narrow streets where fire engines cannot pass. We should make contingency plans straightaway lest our heritage burn away.
Writer: Pioneer
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Numerous global and national leaders today appear to be victims of self-pride and gratification, when they are expected to be humble and modest personalities
Many knowledge organisations and institutions in this country prefer to work entirely on their own and seldom join hands across problem areas or sectors, which might provide far more integrated assessments and solutions for the growing challenges we face. While the interlinked nature of human activities — and their globalisation — is becoming increasingly more complex, it appears that efforts to work along narrow subjects and along established silos seem more deeply entrenched on the Indian scene. This is a major deviation from collaborative trends in several parts of the world, particularly in the developed countries, even though there are disturbing trends to the contrary in those nations as well.
A significant example of partnerships and outcomes thus produced lies in an interesting series of publication entitled, The Conversation. The subtitle for this series describes it as “Academic rigour, journalistic flair.” Indeed, while the analysis presented reflects substantial academic rigour, the style in which it is written is purely that of a conversation, which makes it possible for journalists and the average public to grasp the depth of what is conveyed. When Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister of India, this writer sent him a detailed note on the need to bring together a group of knowledge organisations, which were working on strategic issues. Rajiv Gandhi’s response was swift and positive and the Cabinet Secretary was instructed to convene a meeting of half a dozen knowledge organisations, including The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) and others. The Government agreed in principle to provide regular support for cooperative and interactive work between these organisations. Unfortunately, like several other initiatives, this one also suffered from the plunging decline in political standing of the Government and its inability to undertake fresh initiatives.
The Conversation has a number of sponsors and partners, including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) of Australia, the University of Melbourne, the Australian National University and several others. The CSIRO was patterned along the lines of India’s own Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), but it has gone far beyond the capabilities of the latter with a strong market orientation and ability to generate financial resources and fostering innovation in various fields.
In general, if we were to analyse the lack of effort on the part of leaders in India to reach out and collaborate on issues of contemporary importance, we may be able to identify a certain level of hubris and extreme ego on the part of those responsible for such organisations.
Interestingly, a recent issue of The Conversation discussed hubris and described it as: “Hubris is a dangerous cocktail of over-confidence, over-ambition, arrogance and pride fuelled by power and success. When found alongside contempt for the advice and criticism of others, it causes leaders to significantly overreach themselves, taking risky and reckless decisions with harmful, sometimes catastrophic consequences for themselves, their organisations, institutions and even for society.”
The view seems to be that a number of leaders, both at the global and the national levels, today appear to be victims of hubris. An example can be provided of former US President George W Bush, who overreached himself in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Similarly, the former and final CEO of Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld, who, in his overreach, was responsible for the financial crisis bringing down the Lehman Brothers with him. Former British Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to hold a referendum on EU membership such that he may be able to stop his party’s Eurosceptics on that issue is another example of hubris. Supposedly, Cameron made a decision against the advice of more reasonable colleagues such as George Osborne.
Another issue of The Conversation discussed the area of bipartisanship wherein even a proud Democrat like Lyndon Johnson worked closely with General Eisenhower when the latter was President of the US. Similarly, Democrats also worked with President Ronald Reagan in a similar spirit, which showed the absence of hubris so prevalent among leaders of today. A leader who is down to earth is supposed to identify himself with the interests of the people he leads. Eisenhower even went to the extent of defying the demands of his own party. It is reported that he refused to cut taxes on those upper income groups that had traditionally supported and heavily influenced his own party. Instead, he worked to cut spending and balance the budget — a goal he achieved three times during his two terms. He supported additions to social security and went to the extent of a federally funded national highway system, which was supported by the Democrats as part of a publicly-funded infrastructure programme.
The question is whether these leaders are seen by their followers as larger than life and measuring up to the dimensions of a superman, to be idealised and admired by them. It is hoped that distinguished leaders in the future would show a certain level of humility and shed the hubris that they appear to have acquired in recent years.
It is relevant to recall that the brightest scientist in history Albert Einstein is reported to have said. “I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
Could it, therefore, be that those leaders with hubris lack an intellectual understanding of their own being and most certainly that of nature, which takes the form of remoteness from reality and basic humility? We urgently need leaders in this mould before those with hubris can impose untold harm on society and distort the finest attributes of human nature. But in recent times, leaders with hubris have strutted the stage in the US, the UK, the Philippines, Indonesia and many other countries. Will they be succeeded by more humble and modest personalities?
(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-15)
Writer: RK Pachauri
Courtesy: The Pioneer
With Indonesians gearing up to vote for the country’s next President and Vice President, the world looks up to them to elect a capable and strong leadership
As India, the largest democracy of the world, is poised to elect its new government, one of its oldest allies in Southeast Asia, Indonesia, will elect its new President this month. The world’s largest archipelagic country is the third largest democracy after India and the US. Indonesia is heading towards a stronger democratic set-up after 15 years of stable Government — the first led by former President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, popularly known as SBY, and then Joko Widodo, popularly known as Jokowi.
This writer has just come back after a week-long trip to Java island where a majority of the population concentrates. During the previous trip in October last year, there wasn’t much to talk about the presidential elections but now, after five months, one can notice a paradigm shift in the way Indonesians are thinking about the elections. A country that reeled under 31 years of dictatorship of Soeharto, the second President of Indonesia, is now fast becoming more decisive in choosing its eighth President.
In 1998, the country transited from 31 years of long dictatorship of Soeharto when he was ousted from office. The 15-year rule of SBY and the current Government helped the country become a stable economic power amid rampant corruption among Government officials. It also witnessed a few incidents like terrorist attacks in three Churches in Surabaya in May 2018 and the imprisonment of a dynamic and pro-development leader belonging to the minority community, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, in 2016 in the name of blasphemy and inciting violence alleged by Muslim hardliners during Jokowi’s tenure.
As Indonesia grappled with an economic crisis, coupled with ethnic and sectarian clashes in 1998, the country saw three consecutive short-term Presidents — BJ Habibie, Abdurrhaman Wahid and Megawati Soekarnoputri, who was defeated by SBY in 2004. SBY ruled for two consecutive terms till 2014 when an ordinary man, Joko Widodo, who had no elite political or military background, was elected as President.
Jokowi, a member of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), was the Mayor of Surakarta — a small city in central Java — from 2005-2012. He became very popular among the mass due to his hard work and fast-track problem-solving skills, which made him the best choice to become the Governor of Jakarta in late 2012. He remained in the limelight due to his policies, mostly driven by infrastructure development and focussed on the marginalised section of the society. The PDI-P, led by Sukarnoputri Megawati, backed his candidature for the President in 2014, which he won but not comfortably with just over 53 per cent of the votes against former military general Prabowo Subianto. This time again, Jokowi is running for re-election scheduled on April 17 with a handful of success stories. His counterpart, Prabowo Subianto, is a very strong candidate who has been successful in garnering support from a few conservative Muslim groups by accusing Jokowi of being pro-Chinese, who opened the red-carpet for Chinese investors in the country.
Focussing on infrastructural development, speeding up the most-awaited project of metro train in Jakarta, Jokowi sped up the work on inter-city connectivity in the country, having more than 17,000 islands. Located on the ring of fire, the country faced numerous natural disasters during his tenure. However, he made sure that maximum transparency be maintained in the rehabilitation programmes.
Jokowi placed his first priority on protecting Indonesia’s sovereignty by taking many steps to strengthen maritime boundaries by stopping and sinking foreign vessels engaged in illegal fishing and harvesting sea-weed despite high criticism from neighbouring countries. He struck hard on drug mafia and traffickers by approving capital punishment despite intense pressure from his ally countries like Australia, France and human rights groups across the world.
His counterpart and the present Opposition leader, Prabowo, is running again with a changed strategy and has projected himself as being accommodative of Islam’s cause and is sceptical towards ethnic Chinese by touching a soft chord of the majority of conservative and poor Muslims, who think their economic development is directly impeded by the ethnic Chinese in the country. Subianto, with his running mate Sandiaga Uno, a renowned entrepreneur running for Vice President, has been critical of Jokowi’s pro-Chinese policy that places the duo in a bit stronger position.
During my interaction with some local people in different regions in Java, I found that a majority of them view Prabowo as belonging to the clan of Soeharto, whose 31 years of rule witnessed rampant corruption which became a culture popularly known as “envelop culture.” Corruption still plagues Indonesia. The country languishes in the 89th place of 180 countries in the global rankings of corruption, according to Transparency International. Subianto launched the Great Indonesia Movement Party in 2009 and has a mixed background of being a retired army general and a businessman. He rose to a very high position in the Indonesian Army as a Lieutenant General and was in the news for his swift rise in military positions, being a son-in-law of former President Soeharto.
Comparing both the presidential candidates, Setia Budi, a moderate Muslim middle-aged cab driver, said, “Prabowo is from a military background and he may turn to be a dictator like his father-in-law, Soeharto. He is full of attitude and is very rich. On the other hand, Jokowi, belonging to the lower middle class like us, leads a very simple life. He is very polite and keeps fast for the whole month during Ramadan but never shows it off. He does what he talks. Therefore, Budi is going to vote for Jokowi.”
Prabowo became infamous internationally for his covert operations in East Timor in 1996 in order to suppress the rebellions, which led to human right abuses in the country. In 1998, he was promoted as the head of the 27,000-strong Army Strategic Reserve Command (Kostrad), which is a key Jakarta garrison meant to supervise operational readiness among all the commands and carries out defence and security operations as per the policies of the Indonesian Army commander. Having served in the Army at a very high position, Prabowo, a successful businessman now, has emerged as a shrewd politician and has brought smaller political parties to his side. This time, posing as a pious Muslim, he has assured the safety of ulemas, restored respect and fight to free them from criminal threats against Jokowi’s decision to dismiss an ultra-radical group, Hizbut Tahrir, which aimed to establish an Islamic caliphate in Indonesia. Apart from giving moral support to the religious leaders, he has also promised to help improve the conditions of religious schools in the country.
The country’s political system is based on constitutional democracy. The legislature is made up of two bodies and has a total of 692 MPs. There are the 560-member House of Representatives (DPR) and the 132-member Regional Representatives’ Assembly (DPD) with four representatives from each of the 33 provinces of Indonesia. The Indonesian system of selection of legislators is complex unlike the Indian parliamentary system. In Indonesia, someone can be a member of DPR even though he/she has got less votes than his/her opponent. For the DPR, each Province has been divided into 1-10 constituencies or electoral districts, which finally has 3-10 seats, depending on its size and population. To make his candidature stronger, Jokowi has chosen a popular Muslim scholar Ma’ruf Amin as his running mate for the Vice President in order to connect with the larger section of the conservative Muslims.
Indonesia, a country rich in human and natural resource, has been faced with unemployment problems, too. The costly education system prevents many aspirants to go for higher education, leaving many young students — aged between 14 and 17 years — to seek low-paid jobs, mostly in the booming hotel and service industries. Indonesia has become the world’s seventh largest economy due to its purchasing power capacity. According to the World Bank, the country needs massive investment to develop its massive infrastructural projects, create employment opportunities and streamline its economy.
Islamic fundamentalist groups are trying hard to pronounce their presence in a rather syncretic social system that has been influenced by its long history of the presence of Hinduism and Buddhist empires by opening up more madrasas, making it compulsory for Muslim women to wear headscarves in the rural and semi-urban areas. However, already exposed to Western culture during a long rule of Suharto, the majority of the populace doesn’t seem to be tamed easily by the call of conservative Muslim groups. As the world looks up to Indonesia to throw a viable and strong leadership and have a say in the international issue like the ever-brewing South China Sea dispute, its mature electorate is gearing up to show the power of democracy.
(The writer is a Southeast Asian analyst at the Jawaharlal Nehru University)
Writer: Gautam jha
Courtesy: The Pioneer
General Khalifa Haftar, an old foe of Gaddafi, is gearing up to make his bid for power in the country, as Libyans have to choose between the 76-year-old dictator and continuing chaos, poverty and intermittent violence
With Khalifa Haftar’s forces stalled outside the capital, Tripoli, the eight-year omnishambles in Libya is approaching a climax. It’s not clear yet which side is going to win but at least the dozens of rival militias in the country are now lined up in two recognisable sides. Haftar does have the gift of bringing clarity to a situation.
Alas, he achieves this mainly by making so many Libyans hate him. To them, he is Gaddafi 2.0, a would-be military dictator, who aspires to be a Libyan counterpart to Egypt’s General al-Sisi (and is generously backed by the Egyptian dictator). That’s not what they fought the 2011 revolution for.
Of course, the militia didn’t really do the heavy lifting in that revolution. They were colourful extras fighting little local battles, but the real execution was done by French, British and Canadian aircraft operating under NATO command that bombed Gaddafi’s troops almost to extinction in a six-month campaign in 2011.
The militias’ main role was to put a Libyan face on the whole operation but when NATO walked away after Gaddafi was killed, they were left in charge. They split repeatedly as their quarrels over local extortion rights became acute but they are united in resisting the re-establishment of Central control by a national Government. It is not in their interest.
There is, however, a basic division between eastern Libya (Cyrenaica) and western Libya (Tripolitania) that underlies the manifold rivalries of tribes and clans in both parts of the country. It’s a division that goes all the way back to Roman times, when the east spoke Greek (the language of the eastern part of the empire) and the west spoke Latin.
It persists today, even though everybody now speaks Arabic. The two parts of Libya live largely separate lives, divided by the central strip of coast where the desert reaches the sea — and the west has two-thirds of the country’s six million people.
Haftar controls Cyrenaica and the vast and largely unpopulated desert south of Libya (where most of the oil is) but the west has the advantage of numbers and a profound dislike of being ruled by the east. That’s why the western militias are coming together now, and why his offensive against Tripoli is at least temporarily stalled.
As for the rights and wrongs of the situation, there’s plenty of blame on both sides. Haftar ostensibly represents the Parliament elected in 2014, which fled to the east later that year when Islamist militias seized control of Tripoli. It now sits in Tobruk in the east and is entirely under Haftar’s thumb.
This is Haftar’s only plausible claim to legitimacy. Once a colleague of Gaddafi’s, he fled the country, ended up in exile in the United States for 15 years and is an American citizen but returned to Libya in 2014 and gradually united the militias of the east under his command as the ‘Libyan National Army’ (LNA).
He cleared the Islamist extremists out of Benghazi, the big city in Cyrenaica, in a bloody two-year war and then set out to take the rest of the country. His troops reached the outskirts of Tripoli early this month.
The ‘internationally recognised’, United Nations-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) inside the city is equally unconvincing as a national saviour. It was not elected, but cobbled together by UN mediators in 2015. Its leader, ‘Prime Minister’ Fayez al-Sarraj, didn’t even arrive in Tripoli from abroad until 2016 and he has struggled to establish his authority over the city, let alone over the militias or the entire country.
So now Haftar is making his big bid for power and Serraj is practically irrelevant. The various militias of Tripolitania that are coming together to resist him undoubtedly outnumber him but they have no joint command structure and Serraj cannot provide one.
The ‘smart money’, says Haftar, is bound to lose but that remains to be seen. He has both Egyptian and Russian support (although it’s unlikely that either of them authorised this adventure). And ordinary Libyans face a choice between a new 75-year-old dictator and continuing chaos, poverty and intermittent low-level violence as the militias squabble over the spoils. Not that they will actually be asked about the choice, of course.
How much does this matter to other Arab countries? Not a lot. How much does it matter to the rest of the world? Not at all. As Janis Joplin once remarked in a radically different context, freedom’s just another word for “nothing left to lose.”
(The writer’s new book is Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy and Work)
Writer: Gwynne Dyer
Courtesy: The Pioneer
While much is being said about Imran Khan’s ‘Naya Pakistan’, protecting minorities requires a robust constitutional cover that does not diminish, indignify or decry any faith
Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was too clever by half in suggesting that his supposedly ‘Naya Pakistan’ could teach India “how to treat its minorities.” The genealogical basis for Pakistan (literally “land of the pure”) was conceptualised in the 1933 pamphlet presented by Choudhary Rahmat Ali, who sowed his “two-nation theory” by institutionalising the spirit of “others” or minorities by observing: “These differences are not confined to broad, basic principles. Far from it, they extend to the minutest details of our lives. We do not inter-dine; we do not intermarry. Our national customs and calendars, even our diet and dress are different.” Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s speech on August 11, 1947 to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, however, had sent a contradictory sense with, “You are free. You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan.” But our neighbour has knowingly, steadily and violently walked towards its puritanical moorings. No amount of sophistry in ‘Naya Pakistan’ can cover the same. The drift towards religious extremism was a project-in-making that was temporarily contained during the direct military years of the Ayub-Yahya era and revived in full earnest with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s advent in Pakistani leadership. Thereafter, all leaders of Pakistan, be it military or civilian, have pandered dangerously to the clergy and the accompanying religious sentiments, thereby spiralling the narrative of religious importance to metamorphose into the “terror nursery” of the world.
Today, the concept of minority or the “other” in Pakistan is not just its shrinking minorities of Hindus, Christians, Zoroastrians and even Jews, but also includes the severely persecuted Ahmadiyas, who are condemned from preaching or professing their belief, besides being declared as “non-Muslims”, following Ordinance XX that was passed by the ultra-religious General Zia-ul-Haq in 1984. For all practical purposes, the simmering sectarian tensions of the Sunni-Shia divide have regressed into unprecedented levels of polarisation and violence with supremacist militia targetting the “minority” Shias and their offshoot adherents with either utter impunity or even indirect state-support. A far cry from the days when General Muhammad Musa Khan, a Hazara Shia, was the Pakistani Army Chief during 1958-1966. Contrast this with the uproar of the ostensible Ahmadiya/Qadiani link that surrounded the appointment of the current Pakistani Army Chief Qamar Bajwa, which expectedly had to be rebutted and squashed.
Recently, the ongoing and bloody saga of societal irreconcilability within Pakistan’s imploding mainstream claimed at least 20 innocent lives in a terror attack that was seen to be targetting the “minority” Hazara Shia community in restive Quetta. These veritable “minority” groups of nearly a million in Pakistan and three million in Afghanistan were also systematically targetted by the Pakistan-supported Taliban regime in the 1990s. Their distinct Central Asian features make them easily recognisable and easy targets of militant groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, who have reduced the Hazaras to a ghettoised existence in Pakistan. Last year, the Hazara community had to go on a public hunger strike and seek assurances of protection from the real seat of power in Pakistan, ie, its Army Chief Gen Bajwa, after the spate of Hazara killings had become chillingly commonplace.
Pakistanis are paying the price for patronising extremist elements and the parallel marginalisation of their moderate, secular and democratic forces. With a virtual immunity afforded to the likes of Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, and Jaish-e-Muhammad among others, it is hardly surprising that Pakistan is recognised as a confessional state, despite the feeble attempts of nomenclaturising itself as ‘Naya Pakistan’. It is under Imran Khan’s watch that the Princeton University economist, Atif Mian, was dropped from his Economic Advisory Council (EAC) on account of his belonging to the “minority” Ahmadiya faith. Imran Khan then failed to change the narrative with his feeble handling of the Asia Bibi (of Christian faith) blasphemy case, where he succumbed to the fanatical group Tehreek-i-Labaak. Imran Khan’s own federal Government is also guilty of funding Darul Uloom Haqqania (infamous as the “University of Jihad”) that has the most notorious terrorists, like Mullah Omar and Jalaluddin Haqqani among others, as its alumni. This instinctive tilt towards extremist thought has led Ministers of ‘Naya Pakistan’ to share public platforms with terrorists like Hafeez Saeed, who have been proscribed by the United Nations. Little wonder that global-watch agencies like the Financial Action Task Force have kept relentless pressure on Islamabad to mend its sovereign behaviour that nurtures terror, both externally and internally, as indeed leading to more insecurity for its vulnerable minorities. Herein routine news like the forcible conversions of minorities no longer make headlines.
Fact is, both in Pakistan and India, there is a societal churn and regression towards majoritarianism and hardening of religious opinions. Ironically, in both countries, religious sentiments are pandered and harnessed for their electoral currency. However, in Pakistan, there is an additional angularity of state sanctification afforded by way of its perceived utility in cross-border leverage that is sought by sheltering certain religion-inspired terrorist groups that routinely hit targets across India, Afghanistan and Iran. These extremist forces can often turn their attention towards Pakistan’s hapless minorities and exert violent intolerance and sectarianism against them. Unfortunately, Pakistan’s own track record on willingly controlling these extremist forces was in full display with its initial and natural reluctance to ban Hafiz Saeed’s Jamaat-ud-Dawa’ah and Falah-e-Insaniat.
Beyond the posturing of ‘Naya Pakistan’, the issue of protecting minorities needs Constitutional cover that does not diminish, decry or indignify the credentials of any faith. Basic amendments to laws concerning blasphemy are realistically a “no-go” for Imran Khan’s Government, given its track record of either supporting or capitulating to the regressive forces. The societal divide and tensions for “minorities” are a reality and not a matter of political one-upmanship or point-scoring between Pakistan and India. Pakistan (‘Naya’ or otherwise) has to redefine and legislate its corrective agenda within its Constitutional tenets, else horrific incidents like the latest Hazara massacre will continue unabated.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)
Writer: Bhopinder Singh
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder has finally been arrested for hacking although he has been in the US’s crosshairs for sometime for revealing US secrets for the world to see. In 2010, Wikileaks dumped a huge amount of United States (US) diplomatic cables, some dating back decades, onto its website. These documents were leaked to the site by a US soldier now called Chelsea Manning. Many of the leaked diplomatic cables were mundane, others revealed American duplicity and yet more, some pertaining to India, revealed how citizens were revealing their national secrets to the US. In short, they offered an intriguing insight into the world of diplomacy and espionage. Thereafter, the charismatic founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, who had crowd-funded his website, used the proceeds to try and find more secret documents that rich and powerful individuals and big governments did not want the public at large to find out. To many, he was a hero and in 2010 he claimed the global spotlight.
The leak obviously had a negative impact on American diplomacy and Assange was right to believe that the US would want ‘revenge.’ Meanwhile, Manning was court-martialed and imprisoned by the US and while the narrative has been made that he was a confused young man, who was taken advantage of by Assange, he did face some punishment. Assange, on the other hand, managed to avoid extradition to Sweden, not for the diplomatic cable dump but to face sexual assault charges. He claims he did so to avoid the Swedes potentially extraditing him to the US but his refusal to face those charges lost him much goodwill, as did the revelation that Wikileaks was in touch with Donald Trump’s campaign, specifically his son, during the US presidential election of 2016. This was possibly in the hope that Assange could win a pardon for Trump if he was elected, but that did not happen. While Sweden dropped the charges after the Wikileaks founder ran away and hid in the Ecuadorian embassy, one of the alleged victims has apparently asked for him to be charged again. The Americans are booking him with a fairly light charge of computer hacking to gain access to protected information that will possibly lead to a maximum five-year sentence. Assange might still be a hero to some but US law is clear about computer hacking and he might pay the price for his information warfare. More importantly, one hopes that his alleged victims in Sweden get a chance to prove or disprove their cases against him, because on that front Assange is nothing but a fugitive from the law.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
Beijing still does not trust local cadres in governance despite the propaganda that the Tibetans took ‘their destiny in their own hands’ in 1959. For the past several weeks, the Chinese propaganda machine has been running an information warfare’s exercise based on the events of March 1959, which ended in a bloodbath in Lhasa, but which is today being promoted as the “Emancipation of the Serfs” and the “Introduction of the Democratic Reforms” by the communist regime in Beijing. One could ask: Where is democracy in China today?
Just take a look at the list of party secretaries in Tibet — since August 16, 2016, the Communist Party of China’s boss on the Roof of the World is Wu Jingjie. He is the 15th Han to hold the post since the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) entered Tibet in 1950. Can you imagine Tamil Nadu having non-Tamil Chief Ministers for more than 60 years or any other Indian State for the matter? The fact is that despite the propaganda that the Tibetans took “their destiny in their own hands” in 1959, Beijing still does not trust the local cadres.
The Serfs’ Emancipation is an even bigger lie. In fact, it was a massacre that saw thousands of ordinary Tibetans losing their lives in Lhasa. We have several genuine accounts of what happened at that time.
From the Chinese sources, it is worth mentioning a Kindle book, The 1959 Tibetan Uprising Documents: The Chinese Army Documents (China Secrets), published last year which provides documents from the PLA’s military intelligence on the bloody events of 1959. Another account of the events is given by Jianglin Li in her book, Tibet in Agony. The preface of the book of the Chinese scholar affirms, “The first clear historical account of the Chinese crackdown on Lhasa in 1959. Sifting facts from the distortions of propaganda and partisan politics, she reconstructs a chronology…”
China celebrates March 28 as the Serfs’ Emancipation Day, the day “reforms” could finally be implemented on the Roof of the World; the Tibetan Government had been declared “illegal” by Mao and the so-called Tibetan serfs had been liberated from feudalism and theocracy by PLA guns.
Then, there is the report of the Indian Consul-General in Lhasa (Maj SL Chibber) to the Ministry of External Affairs in Delhi. Maj Chibber, an Indian Army officer from the Jat Regiment, had already spent nine years in Tibet. Chhiber, a reliable eye-witness (he even heard a few bullets passing overhead during the uprising), wrote: “In the history of movement for a free Tibet, the month of March 1959 will be most historic as during this month Tibetans, high and low, in Lhasa, Capital of Tibet, openly challenged the Chinese rule in Tibet. They set up an organisation called the Tibetan Peoples’ Independent Organisation …staged demonstrations to give vent to their anti-Chinese feelings and demanded withdrawal of the Chinese from Tibet. But this challenge, before the might of the Chinese PLA — who on March 20, started an all-out offensive against the ill-organised, ill-equipped, untrained-Tibetans with artillery, mortars, machine guns and all types of automatic weapons — was short-lived.”
He further explained the Dalai Lama’s flight: “Smelling danger, he left Lhasa secretly on the night of March 17, 1959, …for Lhoka area (south of Lhasa), where at that time Khampas had full sway.” The Dalai Lama ultimately took refuge in India on March 31.
Matthew Akester studied the findings of Jianglin Li: “Satisfactory confirmation of detail for this period of Tibet’s history is notoriously difficult due to official secrecy and the virtual non-existence of reliable non-official documentation. The figures assessed, though incomplete, provide crucial indicators of the scale of the PLA’s engagement in Tibet at that time.”
After assessing a larger number of official Chinese documents, Li noted: “Although global estimates remain elusive, the study shows from official figures that something in the order of 10 per cent of the total Tibetan population was involved — killed, wounded and captured — in military operations during these years [1957-59].”
Using reliable Chinese sources, Li calculated that eight Infantry divisions (about 100,000 soldiers), three Air force divisions and two independent regiments were involved. To this should be added three Cavalry divisions and “special units”, ie, chemical warfare, motorcycle and demolition or signals. Also were involved some logistic units such as four truck transportation regiments, engineer corps, field hospitals, Army stations, supply stations and animal hospitals or gas stations. Li estimated that some 1,50,000 military personnel participated in the “emancipation” of a couple of million recalcitrant Tibetans.
Li wrote that besides PLA units, a large number of local militia supported the operation: “The numbers of militia I was able to find in Sichuan, Gansu, Yunnan and Qinghai add up to over 71,000 people.” Civilians were also drafted for various tasks such as transport, evacuation of wounded soldiers, handling pack animals; no less than 143,000 civilian laborers.
The number of casualties was estimated at 10,934 (4,748 dead and 5,223 wounded) on the PLA side, without taking into account Lhasa and Central Tibet (for which figures are unknown). The Tibetan casualties were 2,55,600 for Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan only for the years 1957-59.
In January 1957, while on a visit to India, Zhou Enlai, the Chinese Premier, had long discussions with the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on the introduction of the so-called reforms. Beijing had decided to postpone them by at least for six or seven years. In the course of the conversation, Zhou pointed a finger at non-existing foreigners in Lhasa: “Those bent on trouble are preparing for an incident in Lhasa. These people have some armed forces. Some three temples in Lhasa have also armed forces and they want to create an incident there. If it happened, then there would be bloodshed.”
Although there was no “foreigner” in Lhasa, except for the Indian staff of the Consulate General, but the bloodshed indeed took place in March 1959; it helped Mao to firmly consolidate the position of the Communist regime. In January 1959, Mao and the Central Committee realised that “the PLA had to be used to control the rebellion.” China was facing a revolt of the “serfs.” On January 22, 1959, Mao wrote: “It is good, since there is a possibility for us to solve the [Tibet] problem militarily.” The Chinese are fond of announcing “don’t hurt the Chinese sentiments.” One could ask, what about the Tibetan sentiments? Will the compassionate Dalai Lama ask for an apology for what the Chinese did in Tibet in the 1950s? He should.
(The writer is an expert on India-China relations)
Writer: Claude Arpi
Courtesy: The Pioneer
The Generals in Thailand should note that democracy, at its core, embraces the existence of differences. The people of Thailand deserve more than what the Generals are currently offering, that is trying to completely crush the opposition. Can a true democracy, which enables the right to freedom of expression to question political anomalies, prevail in the ‘Land of Smiles’?
Thailand has been under military rule since 2014 after the removal of the popularly elected Government of Yingluck Shinawatra.
She happened to be the country’s first woman Prime Minister and the youngest occupant of the office in more than half a century. After her ouster, the Generals were sure that Shinawatra clan and their associates would find it hard to make a comeback in Thai politics.
Since then, the entire country has turned out to be a fighting ground simply among the “Red Shirts”, largely representing former Prime Minister and exiled political strongman Thaksin Shinawatra and “Yellow Shirts”, the Army and the royalist elites.
To bring in some normalcy in the country, the current military leader, General Prayut Chan-o-cha who plotted the coup d’etat, later introduced a new Constitution in 2016 that strongly solidified the junta rule across the nation.
Till the conduct of the election, General Prayut was functioning as the Prime Minister, heading a vague body called “National Council for Peace and Order”. In fact, the recent political history of the country indicates that this junta rule is the longest one since the1970s.
General Prayut has maintained a tight grip over the country with the help of the military drafted Constitution and massive investments in infrastructure projects.
Besides, he has been using his soft power such as writing nationalistic pop songs to impress the younger generation, and insisting all public school students to recite his twelve values. In Thailand’s bitter political struggle between the rural poor — the so-called base of the Thaksin and his allies — and the urban elites, the bastion of the military, its proxy parties and the royal supporters, Prayut presents himself as a person who has united the country, indicating his presence as the only alternative to the existing career politicians of the nation.
Simply put, he is viewed as the only antidote of Thaksin in Thai politics.
Frankly speaking what has emboldened Prayut and his cronies is the existing Constitution of Thailand. It was indeed pushed through a referendum in 2016, after strictly banning the critics from campaigning against it.
Interestingly, the Generals could hardly convince half the voters to endorse this Constitution. It gives sole power to the junta to appoint all the 250 members of the Upper House (Senate). Further, it also mentions that the PM does not need to be an MP. This makes it very clear that General Prayut, who does not belong to any political party, can remain in power as the new Prime Minister. The PM will be selected by a joint sitting of the two Houses.
To maintain his current position, Prayut needs only 126 MPs. What is more dangerous to the new Government is that the General can declare a “20-year plan”, to which all future Governments of Thailand will have to obey.
Another important feature of the current Constitution, Section 44 allows the junta to take any steps in the name of protecting the monarchy, national security, maintaining public order, etc. Add to all these, a high-level cyber security law finally allows the Government to monitor online traffic in case of “emergency”.
Taking advantage of the political instability, the military has postponed dates for a fresh vote quite a number of times in the past. Finally, the first post-coup General Election for the country’s 500-seater Lower House, known as the House of Representatives, took place on March 24. The Election Commission released the first preliminary results five days after the election was held. But, it will announce the official results only after May 9, just a few days after the coronation of King Vajiralongkorn.
According to this preliminary result, the pro-military party Palang Pracharath Party won 8.4 million votes, finishing anti-military party, Pheu Thai, the one backed by Thaksin that received 7.9 million votes.
Ironically, it was Pheu Thai that won most of the constituency seats numbering 137, followed by Palang Pracharth with 97 seats. But it remains unclear which party will finally form the Government.
With widespread suspicion of massive election frauds, this week the country’s Election Commission has ordered by-elections in six polling stations. These irregularities include reports of mismatched numbers, inclusion of unqualified voters in the list of eligible voters’ list, and finally, continuous delays in the declaration of results. Meanwhile, the rumours of electoral discrepancies led to countrywide protests, some calling for the impeachment of Election Commissioners and a prominent hashtag, “Election Commission busted” is trending across social media.
Many Thais believe that this election might have been rigged just to pave the way for junta leader Prayut to continue as the PM.
This week, in a rare briefing, Thai Army Chief Apirat Kongsompong told the media in the heart of the capital that Thaksin has never admitted his crime. Also it is interesting to note that King Maha Vajiralongkorn revoked royal decorations given to Thaksin in the past.
The reason behind is that he fled Thailand after being sentenced to prison, that is considered as “an extremely inappropriate behaviour” according to a statement posted on the Royal Gazette’s website.
On record, Thaksin has not returned to Thailand since 2008, after being accused in a case, he has termed largely politically motivated. It must be noted here that since 2001, Thaksin on his own or his allies has been winning each election in the country, but unfortunately, they are barred from forming the Government either by coup or with the help of the judiciary.
Sadly, this election, once again, does not presage the restoration of democracy and civilian rule in the one of the largest nations of Southeast Asia.
The 69 million voters who cast their ballot in this historic election will simply witness consolidation of junta rule in a disguised form under General Prayut.
Today, what heralds shame not only for Thai people, but also for the entire region is that Thailand, the country that became the first nation to become a democracy in 1932, has simply slipped into the clutches of the corrupt and greedy Generals.
It was once the role model of democracy and an inspiration for the coup-prone region. Thailand used to be the pioneer in taking fast steps towards industrialisation immediately after the end of the absolute monarchy. It has also remained as a staunch ally of America in the region bringing in stability in South East Asia.
Today, many of Southeast Asian nations are encountering problems such as ageing population, slow growth rate, corruption in public space and the presence of social safety nets, to name a few. Further, an ever emerging and aggressive Chinese presence across the region under President Xi Jinping has become a permanent threat for their security. Looking at all these, Thai junta and its politicians must see to it that the country remains stable in the coming days. The current king must take a proactive role like his deceased father, who was popularly revered as the “people’s king” in the past.
Today, creating a hybrid democracy in Thailand is not a solution to its people’s woes. Simply to foil the coming of one Thaksin Shinawatra, the Generals should not take the advantage of ruling the country with or without the uniforms. They must understand the critical issues facing the commoners. The elite in Thailand doesn’t represent the true picture of the nation, neither it could run the country alone.
Further, the Generals, before trying to crush the opposition in entirety, should better note that democracy at its heart indicates the existence of differences. The Thais deserve much more than what the Generals are currently offering. Hope, a true democracy, which enables the right to express opinions and freedom to resist anything that goes against the public, will soon prevail in the “Land of Smiles”.
(The writer is an expert on international affairs)
Writer: Makhan Saikia
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Despite finding a new ‘client’ in Italy, other European nations such as France and Germany are not convinced about Beijing’s bonafide interest. On January 28, 1964, The New York Times reported: “General de Gaulle’s Government broke today with the United States (US) policy of isolating communist China and announced the establishment of diplomatic relations with Peking.” The US newspaper added: “France’s recognition of the communist regime was the first by any major power since the Korean War began nearly 14 years ago.” The US deeply regretted the French move at a time the Chinese communists were “promoting aggression and subversion.” So as French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte Macron received the Chinese presidential couple for an intimate dinner at Beaulieu-sur-Mer, a resort on the Riviera, the stakes have changed. China now has the upper hand.
In 1964, former French President Charles de Gaulle had affirmed: “La Chine est un grand pays” (China is a big country) but today it has become power No 2 on the planet after the US and Xi Jinping plans to dethrone America with his own dream. Fifty-five years later, the same New York Times reported the arrival of the Chinese President: “The Promenade des Anglais [in Nice] — the palm-lined beachside avenue that is the city’s premier attraction — was closed to traffic all weekend.” This never happened before.
In March last year, Xi made news when he was given a life-long term as President of China. The international Press then mainly noted the Emperor-for-life aspect, forgetting that Xi wanted to transform China into the No 1 world power. A year later, partly due to Twitter attacks from US President Donald Trump, Xi is not so self-assured and an economic crisis, looming large over China, has weakened the Middle Kingdom. Officially, its growth was only 6.5 per cent in 2018, the slowest pace since the depths of the global financial crisis in 2009. Bloomberg noted: “Tariffs on Chinese exports to the US imposed by President Trump are starting to pinch the country’s factories.”
Xiang Songzuo, a professor at the Renmin University School of Finance, wrote that China’s GDP growth would only be 1.67 per cent and not 6.5 per cent in 2018. According to the website Chinascope, Xiang also warned that “nowadays, Chinese have become addicted to playing with debt and high leverage financing. This is actually a mirage and will collapse soon.”
L’Affaire Huawei has been a turning point for the Western views on the Middle Kingdom; the telecom equipment company has been at the centre of media attention for the wrong reasons; US officials charged the company with stealing technology from T-Mobile, one of its business partners and wanting to impose its own standards for the 5G, the latest generation of cellular mobile communications. This is the background of Xi’s visit to Italy, Monaco and France.
Chinese strategists were aware that Italy is the weakest link in the Europe Union (EU) and while more and more countries realise that the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), so dear to Xi, is not offering free meals but often plunges the beneficiary nations into deep debts, Beijing managed to find a European “client.”
On March 23, Xinhua reported that Xi and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte jointly “elevated the China-Italy relations into a new era”. A Memorandum of Understanding to advance the construction of the Belt and Road was signed. In a diplomatic jargon, the Chinese news agency said that “the two countries have continuously deepened their communication and cooperation in various fields, which helped each other’s social and economic development.”
Xi urged the two sides to accelerate negotiations on a China-EU investment agreement, enhance synergy of the BRI and the EU’s development strategies. Conte answered the Chinese President: “Italy is glad to seize the historic opportunity in joining the Belt and Road construction.”
Other European countries were not amused, though Xi assured Italy that the BRI would be a two-way road for investment and trade. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told Welt am Sonntag newspaper: “In a world with giants like China, Russia or our partners in the US, we can only survive if we are united as the EU …and if some countries believe that they can do clever business with the Chinese, then they will be surprised when they wake up and find themselves dependent.”
The EU’s German budget commissioner, Guenther Oettinger, told the Funke newspaper group that Europe should ensure it retains its autonomy and sovereignty when dealing with China.
French President Macron forcefully asserted that the time of European naivety over China was over: “For many years, we had an uncoordinated approach and China took advantage of our divisions,” he said. He called for stricter rules on Chinese investments in the EU; German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed similar views.
French Finance Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian remarked that “Silk Road cooperation must go in both directions”.
The French Press quoted the Sri Lankan experience as “the dark side of the new Silk Road.” It mentioned the port of Hambantota and how in the mid-2000s Colombo agreed “to entrust Beijing with the construction of an ex-nihilo port in the town of Hambantota, in the south of the island. It is not yet a question of the Silk Road …but all the ingredients were there.”
Like for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Chinese funds, engineers and workers would build the infrastructure in partnership, supposedly becoming a ‘win-win’ venture. But Sri Lanka, like Malaysia and many other countries, has now discovered that it was in fact a lose-lose operation, with the new assets becoming Chinese as soon as the client state is unable to refund the ‘loans’.
Xi probably did not convince Macron, Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (the latter two joined Macron in Paris to meet the Chinese President) of Beijing’s bonafide, despite the Chinese President’s enigmatic words: “In politics, we should not only build a strong ‘dam’ of mutual trust, but also a ‘lighthouse’ of ideal.”
However, at the end of his visit, Xi left a small present for the European firm Airbus, a $35 billion jet deal, which included 290 A320-series narrow-body planes and 10 A350 wide-bodies. President Macron observed that Xi’s official visit was an “excellent signal” of the strength and reliability of relations between China and France. He added that the two countries are ready to build a “strong Euro-Chinese partnership, based on clear, strict and ambitious rules” …minus naivety. Will it work?
(The writer is an expert on India-China relations)
Courtesy: Pioneer
Writer: Claude Arpi
Securing IP rights is a formidable task for foreign enterprises in China. Considering the country’s poor record of global trade compliance, the US requires more manoeuvring tactics to encounter a recalcitrant Beijing administration either through tariffs or arbitration
The trade war between the US and China is taking an ugly turn. At the centre of the trade war between the two economic giants is the stealing of massive Intellectual Property (IP) of the US enterprises by the Chinese business firms and other dubious entities.
It is to be noted that irrespective of the current standoff between Washington and Beijing — starting from the Huawei to an incessant trade war to blocking of Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist at the UN — US President Trump needs to be careful about the immediate consequences of falling apart with the $14trn worth Chinese economy at the moment.
Amid claims and counter-claims by both Washington and Beijing, it is worth noting how both are veering around the IP issue and defending one another. For Trump Administration, making China listen and take necessary steps to curb sheer violations of IP rights that amounts to some good billions each year is the aim for now.
For President Trump, what is good for him is that a large business and political community in his country agree that China can spoil the global trading system in the long run. China’s steroidal State capitalist regime poses a serious threat to the current international business system.
But then, China strongly refuses such claims constantly made by both the American Chamber of Commerce in China (AmCham China) and the European Union of Chamber of Commerce in China (European Chamber). Last year, China’s Vice-Minister of Commerce Wang Shouwen publicly declared that accusations that China steals IPRs and forces technology transfers are sheer fabrications out of nothing and groundless.
The Xi regime has outrightly rejected US and EU allegations.
Indeed, the Chinese Government says that it is keen on protecting IPRs and has already taken serious steps in doing so. Ironically, the AmCham China and European Chamber in their China business climate survey, ranked the IPR issue as the 12th and the 11th last year. But this has given fresh ammunition to Beijing to reclaim that if China had forced technological transfers, failed in IPR protection or even stolen IPRs, the concerned enterprises would have complained directly.
It has been constantly aired by the Government that in terms of IPR legislation, China has enacted adequate laws and regulations which are truly compliant to WTO directives.
Meanwhile China has set up three IPR courts in Shanghai, Beijing and in Guanghou and special judicial branches in more than 15 cities to handle cross regional IP cases. This all is fine on official records. What makes foreign enterprises fighting IP issues see it is as a herculean task is to fight China’s opaque judicial system. And moreover, all these organs are party-controlled and cases are always bias either towards the locals or state owned enterprises.
Now the question is how the Trump Administration will wade through this crisis and find a way out wherein; first, the interests of American enterprises are served, and second, most of the European and other corporate houses are well protected from the clutches of Xi’s new-found market socialism. Besides, as the presidential election fever is about to grip America, the President must bring an end to the current trade war between the US and China. Again, his team demands a robust public relations campaign to respond to the Opposition and special interest groups.
Many in the US argue that President Trump has done right to unsettle the global behemoth China. The 2016 Report of the US Trade Representative (USTR) to Congress on WTO Compliance rightly noted: “Many of the problems that arise in the US-China trade and investment relationship can be traced to the Chinese Government’s interventionist policies and practices and the large role of state-owned enterprises and other national champions in China’s economy, which continue to generate significant trade distortions that inevitably give rise to trade frictions. The United States notes that China’s current leadership, in place since 2013, has highlighted the need to pursue further economic reforms in China, but to date not much progress is evident.”
Contrary to what Xi proclaimed, he is turning all his efforts to mount a nationalist fervour so as to drum up continued support for strengthening the Communist Party at home and expansion of China’s shady deals abroad.
It must be noted here that when China joined the WTO in 2001, it clearly pledged not to demand technology transfer from the MNCs coming to operate inside as one of the prime conditions for market entry. Global experts say it is really difficult to make a case against China because it has generally observed by the letter of its WTO commitments.
In reality, what makes running business tricky in China is the indispensable role of the local partners that play on the global corporate houses. It has been noticed that from car manufacturing to cloud computing, only with the aid of the local agents and partners, the MNCs can make their business happen.
When it comes to the project implementation level, the Chinese regulators demand methods of product testing and approval procedures which results in compelling the foreign companies to divulge their IP secrets in the process. Various global trade experts say the unstated goal behind the entire process is to help the Chinese companies getting easy access to foreign technology.
But then the Beijing smartly replies quite often that these business regulations and verification procedures are completely voluntary and are purely commercial agreements made between concerned MNCs and the Chinese Government.
Another serious problem that directly hits the foreign MNCs in China is the issue of “quojin mintui” (the State advances, the private sector retreats), particularly under the Xi Government. The Government and its banks systematically funnels cheap capitals towards these state owned firms at times at the cost of the advancement of the big corporate houses.
Simply speaking, economic reforms if at all carried out by Xi, it would be a win-win situation for both China and America. However, looking at China’s poor global compliance records so far, Trump requires more manoeuvring tactics to encounter a recalcitrant Beijing administration either through tariffs or with the help of arbitration to save the treasured IPs of global giants.
(The writer is an expert on internatinal affairs)
Writer: Makhan Saikia
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Despite the recent events, India must do all it can to prevent Pakistan from using the Kartarpur corridor to revive pro-Khalistan sentiments
The freedom to practise one’s faith and seek succour at shrines dedicated to it has been a challenge for nation states that are in conflict with each other but share a religious and cultural heritage beyond borders. However, as this is a UN-mandated human rights issue, every nation has tried to work out a protocol, Israel and Palestine being prime examples of ensuring cross-flow of pilgrims to shrines on each side despite the attendant security imperatives, oppressive herding drills and the overarching shroud of politics. So it has taken really long for both India and Pakistan to agree to open a special border crossing linking Gurdwara Darbar Sahib in Pakistan’s Kartarpur – the final resting place of Guru Nanak Dev – to Dera Baba Nanak shrine in India’s Gurdaspur district. However, given the heightened tension between both neighbours over the Pulwama terror attacks and the Balakot airstrikes, and now Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar protected by a Chinese hold at the UN, the talks to work out the modalities were undoubtedly under a cloud. But as the government has set a new paradigm in counter-terrorism strategies with pre-emptive strikes on terror camps, it has also laid a new template for shared shrines by delinking it completely from diplomacy, categorically saying that this common interest, while allowing people-to-people contact, could in no way be interpreted as a thaw in relations or a resumption of bilateral dialogue. In that sense, it would be just business as usual in helping cross-border families get on with their daily lives like the Samjhauta Express. However, for all the show of bonhomie, there were some glitches too — India wants visa-free access to at least 5,000 pilgrims per day but Pakistan wants a permit issued and a limit on numbers. India also reminded that the spirit of the pilgrimage should be honoured, making Pakistan responsible for any disruptive or militant activity. But overall, the meeting remained cordial with both sides determined to address their domestic constituency and claim the moral high ground.
No matter how hard India may try, the fact is that Pakistan’s encouraging moves on the Kartarpur corridor are not entirely free of politics. Pakistan seized the first mover’s advantage in propaganda by declaring its intention to operationalise it soon after Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh blamed it and the ISI for the grenade attack on a Nirankari gathering near Amritsar. India had no choice but to get into the act immediately before it could assess if it was another attempt by Pakistan to woo the Sikh community, revive the hardline Khalistan sentiment and eventually create unrest in Punjab. Pilgrimages between India and Pakistan are governed by the 1974 Protocol on Visits to Religious Shrines, but Kartarpur being not on that list needs a separate code of engagement, one where both sides will jostle for a say. Besides, India has to be alert that the base camp on the Pakistan side doesn’t become a hotbed for Khalistani propaganda and meetings in the name of allowing faith congregations. Pakistan’s haste in pushing the corridor now after years of dilly-dallying does raise questions about its intentions. The first demand for a visa-free access was made in 1999 by the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. In 2004, Dr Manmohan Singh suggested a corridor as Prime Minister. On both occasions, there was no positive response from Pakistan. However, the very day Imran Khan took oath as Prime Minister, the message for opening the corridor was conveyed by Pakistan Army Chief Qamar Javed Bajwa to Punjab Minister and Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu, knowing full well the latter’s flamboyance and ability to shoot off his mouth, which he did, catching India completely off guard. The “deep state” had succeeded in championing a delicate cause for the Sikhs. And yet again, as General Bajwa stood in Kartarpur, shaking hands with a known Khalistani face, Gopal Singh Chawla, the visual added to our worries. Pakistan could still use this people-to-people contact to pressure India into resuming comprehensive dialogue and appear altruistic and big-hearted in the process. But India cannot afford to let down guard on isolating Pakistan diplomatically over its sponsorship of terror factories that impact us. Kartarpur should remain a matter of faith and not a political tool.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month