Hong Kong protesters, braving arrests and insinuations, have shown that an alive citizenry can still make good

At a time of monolithic triumphalism of nationalist regimes across the world, the Hong Kong protests showed how civil movements might just still be able to turn the tide. Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced the withdrawal of the controversial extradition Bill, the impetus that had led the citizenry to stage Tiananmen Square-like pro-democracy protests since June. The Bill acted as a catalyst for three long months, paralysing the city and forcing millions of protesters, mostly the young, to make their way on to the streets, demanding its withdrawal. Hong Kong is bracing for more demonstrations this weekend, with protesters threatening to disrupt transport links to the airport. The primary reason is that Lam’s decision is still not formal, considering her announcement has no value till such time she formally declares it in the legislative council. The second and more important reason is that the extradition law, which would have put Hong Kong’s dissidents under China’s laws, has set a context for speaking out against the infringement of the island’s semi-autonomous character as guaranteed during the transfer by the British. And now that activists have tested the power of collective voice, the umbrella movement will not just remain an outburst but a struggle for democratisation of the local government. Needless to say that press freedoms have been compromised over the years on the island, elected legislators disqualified and demonstrators and dissidents thrown into prison. And now that a popular push has resulted in a global opinion that even a mighty China can ill afford to ignore, Hong Kong’s citizenry has decided that they won’t settle for anything less. They now want the power to directly elect their political representatives, including the Chief Executive. They also want an independent inquiry into police brutality. As for the latter, while Lam has assured an investigation into the protest crisis, there’s a clever twist. Instead of committing a new, independent inquiry, as has been demanded by the protesters, she has named two senior officials on the existing inquiry panel, members of which are appointed by her and answerable to Beijing.

In the entire episode, what has been commendable is the bravery of the demonstrators, most of whom have been peaceful. More than 1,000 protesters were arrested; they had to face tear gas, rubber bullets and some were even accused of being members of a triad criminal gang. China, in the times of social media justice, has little manoeuvering room as it cannot fall foul of international opinion, having had a controversial rights record, or dilute Hong Kong’s cosmopolitanism, something it could encash for PR. With its own economy grunting and heaving, it cannot afford to risk a dent in that of Hong Kong’s. Already, Fitch Ratings has lowered its ranking of Hong Kong, citing uncertainty about the stability of its business environment. The protesters, however, should temper their moves a bit and not assume that China will be forced into a retreat. In fact, the more violent the clashes, the easier it will be for China to argue for the use of brute force and ensure peace. Worse, it can blame the US for provoking dissenters to swing the trade tariffs and at least get nationalist opinion on its side.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

PM Modi and Russian President Putin have redefined traditional boundaries for stronger strategic ties

In the end, it was hugplomacy which made the headlines as Prime Minister Narendra Modi called on “great friend” Vladimir Putin and described the Indo-Russian relationship as an unprecedented partnership. In fact, it was the informal talks at Sochi last year and the personal chemistry between Putin and Modi that have reset the Indo-Russian axis of cooperation that, over time, was fraying at the edges and taken for granted. Clearly, in the context of changed geopolitics and multi-polar dynamics, there was a drift not too long ago as both nations were guided by their nationalist and political imperatives. At one end, the ties were tested by India’s proximity to the US and the dominating spectre of that superpower on mutual trade and business, particularly defence. On the other was Russia’s tilt towards China and even arms deals with Pakistan. Going by the chief guest status accorded to Modi for the Eastern Economic Forum meeting at Vladivostok, introducing India as a decisive economic player in the Russian-Pacific region and holding the 20th bilateral summit there as an example of expanded cooperation, the relationship is not only on an even keel but is looking to spread to newer areas and won’t just depend on traditional convergence. And with the heft of Russia’s position that it respected “India’s Constitutional space” on Kashmir, India did manage to swing international opinion. Both Modi and Putin have now realised that while global politics is fluid and could force the need to calibrate individual responses, bilateral relations would be immune to any external influence and work towards shoring each other up. In that sense, the personal understanding between the two leaders has indeed reinvented the wheel. As Putin said, it would now prioritise “mutual benefit.”

Russia continues to be the biggest exporter of arms to India despite our buys from the US and after the S-400s, it will also help in making AK-203 rifles. So it is now looking beyond the dependence on defence contracts. The Vladivostok summit is expected to promote stable mutual growth of trade turnovers, aiming to touch $30 billion by 2025. While ONGC Videsh has been an early player in the region with the Sakhalin oil fields, joint development of oil and gas fields in both Russia and India is in the pipeline. This will help reduce our dependence on the Gulf.  And since nuclear energy constitutes a fundamental building block for strategic partnership, Russia remains the only foreign country in India involved in practical construction of nuclear reactors. In the process of building six power units of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant, it will now promote joint projects with India, too, in third countries, like it is doing at the Rooppur nuclear plant project in Bangladesh. The Russian far east is expected to allow new areas for Indian investment and the 25 agreements include mining mineral resources, harnessing energy, pharmaceuticals and R&D, partnerships in education, agriculture, aquaculture, tourism and skilled labour. Most importantly, the Vladivostok-Chennai sea route, which was once used by Russian cargo ships, will now be developed as a key transport and logistics corridor. On its part, the Russians will enhance industrial cooperation and contribute to infrastructure development through “Make in India.” For example, they will collaborate on the Nagpur-Secunderabad high-speed corridor. And now that they will be training and selecting astronauts for Gaganyaan, there will be increased space cooperation, too. Of course, Russia will have to consider the Indo-China anxieties within the RIC (Russia, India, China) club if it wants to be a pivot of the Asia-Pacific region. And there will be divergence on foreign policy with regard to the Pacific waters, the territoriality of which has been defined by the US as “Indo-Pacific”, establishing our primacy in any policy there while Russia disapprovingly calls it “Asia-Pacific.” Of course, Moscow has sought to deflect concern from its endorsement of China’s Belt and Road Initiative by seeking a more extensive Eurasian partnership involving India in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Russia insists that every country in the region has its own vision and the idea should be not to exclude anybody from dialogue. Cooperation within G20, BRICS, SCO, RIC, EAS and other multi-lateral formats will be Russia’s way to align India to mutual interests. Of course, finding convergence among divergence will be a tall order but at the moment the idea is to soften the latter with the cushion, or rather bear hug, of the former.

Writer: Kalyani Shankar

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Greta Thunberg is the face of a global revolution by young people on climate change. We need many more like her

If you have not read about Greta Thunberg and the climate revolution that this teenager from Sweden is leading, you have either been living under a rock or completely obsessed by domestic news. However, this is the time that you must pay heed to what this young girl has been saying, which is quite simply that the way we are living today is unsustainable for the environment, that the current generation is completely messing up the planet and this will make it uninhabitable for future generations. Her voice is strong and credible, simply because she practises what she preaches, eliminating carbon footprints in her everyday life. For her journey to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), she refused to fly. Instead, she sailed with her father, a two-man crew and a cameraperson on the 60-foot Malizia II racing yacht with solar panels and underwater turbines that generate electric power. Understandably she is being heard across many developed nations. However, she is not being heard in several others, including India. That is why it is vital that India gets a Greta Thunberg of its own, someone who can speak truth to the powers that be about the way we are treating this planet. Undoubtedly, the country will suffer some of the worst consequences of global warming and it is important that voices of young people, who will suffer the consequences of our actions and the lack of policy initiatives when it comes to the environment, are heard.

Climate change is for real and while leaders and bureaucrats in our country understand that, one presumes they are so focussed on other matters right now that environment is being swept under the carpet as a secondary concern. India and the rest of the world cannot afford to make this mistake. As the burning Amazon rainforest reminds us, the actions or inactions of nations will have long-term implications for humanity as a whole. India needs voices to pipe up and the media will play a crucial role here. Instead of the incessant jingoism and the bullying that masquerades as nationalism, we need to talk about the environment. And who better than a teenager, someone whose generation will suffer the consequences of what we do today, can do that? This effort also requires teachers in schools to make young people aware of how unbridled and unchecked development will impact the country and the world. It is a challenge though in India, not least because it is faced with the task of lifting millions out of poverty and hopelessness and giving them access to electricity and other such services, which will have an environmental impact. An aspirational population, which wants access to modern conveniences, will have an environmental impact. For better or worse, it would be desperately unfair for anyone to argue that they should not aspire towards a better future. There will be more thermal power generated and as new factories, airports and roads come up, we cannot escape all these. Ergo, it is important to teach the population at large to minimise that impact and this will be best served by someone young. While Miss Thunberg carries on with her stellar work, convincing young people and politicians in Western nations, who have contributed the most to environmental degradation, that they have to change their ways, we need an Indian inspiration.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

With our neighbour negating bilateralism, only global pressure can help limit its nefarious abilities so as to establish relative peace between India and Pakistan

US President Donald Trump overcame his mercantilist instinct to “mediate” in the India-Pakistan muddle and reason was restored in the debate, albeit temporarily, given his whimsicality and penchant for “deals.” The initial hoopla to “mediate” was unnecessarily created by an over-enthusiastic Trump, who rode roughshod over the deliberately-calibrated position articulated by previous presidential regimes in deference to “bilateralism” as the preferred means to address India-Pakistan differences.

Trump had waded the perennially short-of-facts-and-sensitivities into the sub-continental quagmire and incredulously stated that he “would love to be a mediator”, without realising the inadvertent twist that such a reckless statement was affording. Soon, the revert to “bilateralism” as the strategic framework was clarified by the bumbling-fumbling US President on the sidelines of the G-7 summit as he restored America’s position by stating, “I have very good relationship with both the gentlemen (Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Imran Khan) and I’m here. I think they can do it (resolve the issue) themselves.”

Part businessman’s braggadocio and part his genuine sovereign concern to keep the Pakistani establishment in good humour —  given the tactical urgency to solicit Islamabad’s help in extricating itself out of Afghanistan — Trump had almost acceded to the Pakistani aspiration of “internationalising” the India-Pakistan differences instead of insisting on “bilateralism” between the two disagreeing parties as was maintained by the US for long.

The immediate battleground for the Indo-Pakistan war of words is essentially on the disagreeing framework of a possible peaceful solution ie, should it be conducted in a “bilateral” manner as India thinks appropriate or should third-party “mediate” as is the wont on Pakistan? Legally speaking, there ought to be no ambiguity as the last-standing agreement between the two sovereigns, overriding all previous understandings, is the Simla Agreement (1972) that unequivocally states that both countries will “settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations.”

The Simla pact also captures the essentiality of “non-interference” in each other’s internal affairs and conducting hostile propaganda — features that have unilaterally been violated by Pakistan with its proven support to insurgencies and terror groups in India, with Kargil emerging as the apogee of its misadventures and machinations. Today, despite much posturing to the contrary, having been found guilty on 32 counts of the total 40 parameters related to terror financing,  Pakistan has been put on the “enhanced blacklist” by the global watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). This backdrop of sovereign immorality, incorrigibility and duplicity is what underlies the Pakistani aversion to “bilateralism.”

There are various reasons as to why Pakistan abhors “bilateralism”. Conceptually and practically, the deliberations that are conducted in a “bilateral” framework are implicitly more focussed, nuanced with historical perspective and sensitivities and above all, lead to the fastest possible resolutions.

Ironically, the efficacy of “bilateralism” is what haunts the Pakistani narrative. Peace with India is the ultimate delegitimiser of the troika in Pakistani establishment ie, military, politicos and the clergy. The entire edifice and rationale of the Pakistani state is based on a regressive, competitive and flawed concept of “two-nation” theory that militates against the tenets of inclusivity, secularity and prosperity of the Indian state.

The creation of Bangladesh in 1971 destroyed the foundational raison d’etre of Pakistan. This was a deep wound that dangerously questioned its military and the ruling politicos of that time and, thus, germinated the seeds of the third vector of the Pakistani establishment ie, clergy, to inter-mingle, mutate and atrophy the societal-political-cultural moorings of the state. Post 1971, for Benazir Bhutto to Zia-ul-Haq as also subsequent regimes over there such as the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) [PML-N] and now Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) led by Imran Khan, the underlying, accompanying and unsettled fixation to “even” with India by keeping the fires burning is a predominant national instinct.

“Bilateralism” works on reconciliation, confidence-building steps, gradualism — all of this is an anathema to the very existence of the Pakistani troika/establishment. The third-party “mediation” allows the much-needed obfuscation, escalation and pandering to unrelated emotions that keep the issue “live”, thus necessitating the relevance of each of the elements of the Pakistani establishment. Third-party mediation is also sought via friendly and leverage-able countries and organisations who can provide the much-needed tilt in the battle of positions.

Resorting to pitching the Kashmir issue within the precincts of an organisation like the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) by default allows Pakistan to posit the same from a narrow religious lens and emotion as opposed to the reality of historical facts, agreements and any other societal lens. On the other hand, the Constitutional construct of India auto-rejects religiosity as a basis of difference, preference or concern. Equality of all, irrespective of their race, religion or region, is the Constitutional guarantee.

“Internationalising” the Kashmir issue is the only unifying aspiration for a nation that is deeply polarised, combusting and enfeebled (financially, socially and economically). However, Pakistan has not been able to replicate the wounded sense of “Palestine” as the comparable actions of the Indian state and Israel in addressing their respective concerns have been starkly different. With all its systemic flaws, occasional mistakes and missteps, India has always sought, invested and aspired for “peace.” This legitimises the larger Indian narrative.

Globally, there is an increasing amount of plain-speak, impatience and intolerance with roughish duplicitousness that naturally lends itself to isolating nations that still insist on carrying on the tracks of the past.

The recent retraction of Trump to re-suggest “bilateralism”, the haunting silence of the Arab Sheikhdoms towards the rote Pakistani pitch on Kashmir and the unrelenting pressure on Islamabad by multilateral organisations like FATF, are all symptomatic of the times that be.

Unfortunately, there is a parallel need to sustain the skeletal-structure of governance in Pakistan as it is, as the alternative to this can be far worse than the one that exists today — Libya, Iraq, and Yemen are cases in point of dismantling imperfect structures.

Thus, it is only the collective global pressure to “manage” the Pakistani establishment and limit its nefarious abilities that can usher in relative peace as the existing issues are foundational, existential and regime-sustaining.

(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)

Writer: Bhopinder Singh

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Imran Khan may be throwing more ill-thought hurdles our way but is now being hounded at home for mishandling J&K

It is a tough time to be the Pakistan Prime Minister, even if one propped up, coached, tutored and played by the fountainhead of the nation’s real power, the Army. Little wonder then that Imran Khan is at his most vulnerable as his armed invincibility has now been hopelessly blown to smithereens and isn’t scaring anybody in the region. Completely spooked by US President Donald Trump’s stand on Kashmir that it was a bilateral issue between two neighbours and isolated by even the Islamic world that considers the abrogation of Article 370 as India’s internal and administrative matter, Khan is desperately short of ideas and is making one embarrassing counter-move after another. First, he is threatening to close down his country’s airspace to Indian flights, riled by the fact that Prime Minister Narendra Modi used Pakistani airspace to fly to France, a nation that has steadfastly helped India’s line on sponsorship of terror factories. Second, he is urging certain pro-Khalistani Sikhs, who have been used for anti-India propaganda for years, to support him on Kashmir. In a viral video, a Pakistan-based Sikh leader claimed that no less than the highest temporal authority of the Sikhs, namely the Akal Takht, had asked the community to do so. It is another matter that the Takht has passed no such unrealistic resolution. Third, he is threatening to close land routes between India and Afghanistan and block trade, something that is more disadvantageous to his economy than ours. We have already downgraded trade relations and withdrawn Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to Pakistan since the Pulwama attacks. Khan has proclaimed himself to be a global brand ambassador of Kashmiris and is reminding the world of repercussions in the event of an escalation of Indo-Pakistan hostilities, considering both are nuclear powers. Does he realise that such a strike is the last option any nation would contemplate and obliterate his people as well?

Truth is Khan, and by extension the Pakistani Army, are just moving around traditional counterweights in the strategic chessboard, hopelessly failing to blur the hard-edged reality. And that is since Pulwama, India has stopped being preventive about but rather reactive to Pakistani threats. The Modi brand of Indo-Pak diplomacy has shown that it is not scared to take on Pakistan’s “what could be” scenarios and could frustrate its “thousand bleeding cuts” strategy of exporting terror and separatism, staying well under the nuclear flashpoint. This new-found boldness means Pakistan misadventures on Indian territory are not to be tolerated but acted upon and nipped in the bud. Khan’s emotional appeal to the Islamic world that Kashmir was a matter of protecting Muslim identity has also backfired miserably with the snub from OIC and the UAE. Bahrain named Modi for its highest civilian honour, coopting the centrality of India in economic and strategic cooperation in the Gulf. Even the Taliban, known for its hardline interpretation of Islam, has not warmed up to the Kashmir question, although it has been safe-housed and nurtured by the Pakistan Army. Then its all-weather friend China has been selective in its reaction to India’s mainstreaming of Kashmir, objecting only to the bifurcation of Ladakh and its impact on Aksai Chin that it had taken over after the 1962 war. Besides, given its own problematic record of human rights in minority provinces and with Uyghurs, it doesn’t want to attach itself to causes linked to religiosity or upset its bilateral paradigm with India at the moment, which is far bigger. The Asia-Pacific grouping of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the watchdog of nations promoting terror and empowered to restrain international funding, has already put Pakistan on an enhanced blacklist, so most nations would not want to touch it now because of that taint. Now, our western neighbour has to focus on avoiding the blacklist in October, when the final review comes up. If any good has happened to Pakistan, it is that the foreign policy of years is now being questioned by its opposition parties. Bilawal Bhutto has now advised Khan that he better focus on saving Muzaffarabad and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, lest that strategic pie also slips out of his hands. Of course, democracy is a long shot in Pakistan but Khan and the Pakistan Army have now got to reconcile that their age-old templates aren’t working or won’t be anymore in a world where politics will be dictated by the economy. 

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

The UK is driving towards the new deadline haphazardly. Its actions will impact the global economy  

The United Kingdom (UK) is now in the midst of a full-blown Constitutional crisis with the new Boris Johnson-led Government deciding to prorogue Parliament. This might have been scandalous in other times, especially as the Government has a majority of just one, and could have led to “horse-trading” as several Constitutional experts in the UK have warned. But with Britain also rushing headlong towards the October 31 deadline to leave the European Union (EU), there’s no room for such machination. One can only imagine the volume of screaming and shouting had the Government in India tried to prevent Parliament from discussing something of paramount national interest. Comments by several British parliamentarians from the Opposition as well as the ruling Conservative Party, including the Speaker of the House of Commons, have been of surprise and outrage. For students of British history, it appears that another schism has emerged between Parliament and the Executive, which goes back before the English Civil War.

And while there is no risk of a violent second civil war, the country is hugely divided, politically, socially and economically. Yet, it is also clear that the vote on leaving the EU must be honoured — for better or worse. The problem is that several parliamentarians are rightly scared about the “for worse” option, particularly about a “no deal” transaction with the EU. This would, some fear, lead to a land border between British Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as well as Customs and immigration chaos. There is no resolution as yet about the status of European citizens living and working in the UK as well as what will happen to British citizens in Europe. And with just about 60 days to work out a solution, Johnson must have felt that he could have done without the distractions of a deeply divided Parliament. What he might have created though is a monster and united the several warring factions inside the Houses of Westminster into a cohesive unit. Negotiating deals is not as easy as composing tweets or even campaigning, both things that Johnson is very good at. Dealing with hard-nosed bureaucrats of the EU and trying to extract concessions is even tougher. It appears Johnson has borrowed some tactics from Pakistan, which regularly negotiates with a gun to its head, as a commentator once aptly said. The UK, which sowed the seeds of conflict in the Levant, South Asia and Africa, finds itself in a bind and the rest of the world, particularly those that have once been part of the empire, cannot help but feel what the Germans call schadenfreude.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

With the economy sinking and a failed bid at the UNSC, Islamabad is in no position to declare war or embrace peace. It will do well to focus on its internal problems

A fortnight after the Modi Government defanged Article 370, scrapped its illegal appendage, Article 35A and split the northern State into the Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu & Kashmir, Islamabad is groping for a coherent response. In May 1998, when the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee stunned the world by testing five nuclear devices (Pokhran-II) and made India a full-fledged nuclear state, Islamabad swiftly showcased its own nuclear capability.

This time, most world capitals overcame their surprise and accepted the changes in Jammu & Kashmir as India’s internal matter; Pakistan was supported by the colonial-minded Western media and China, which arranged “closed consultations” (unrecorded) in the UN Security Council. India’s action was breathtaking in its simplicity and audacity: Operating within the Line of Control (LoC), it took long-suffering Ladakh to its bosom as a directly-administered Union Territory  while Jammu & Kashmir provinces were declared a separate Union Territory with an elected legislature. The Union Home Ministry will have direct supervision of both.

Political parties and dynasties that misused Article 370 to nurture separatist sentiments in the Valley while neglecting Jammu and Ladakh regions have been downsized and separatists put on notice. A zero-tolerance policy towards terrorism was already in place. Caught between a perilous economic situation with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) breathing down its neck on one side, and its jihadi groups on the other, Islamabad is in no position to declare war or to embrace peace.

Prime Minister Modi’s artful jugglery has subtly avenged India’s exclusion from the Afghanistan talks, making it difficult for Washington and Islamabad to put the Taliban in power in Kabul, with the acquiescence of Moscow and Beijing. This gives a breather to the Kabul regime that was also excluded from four-party negotiations. Washington is, thus, likely to remain trapped in the graveyard of empires because successive Presidents from George Bush Jr, Barack Obama and now Donald Trump would not consider gifting the impressive American arsenal to the Afghan Army, training it to use the same and making a dignified retreat.

Washington is unconcerned about the fate of President Ashraf Ghani, former President Hamid Karzai, their colleagues and supporters, should Taliban return to Kabul. But for India, this is a matter of deep concern. New Delhi’s checkmate has put Islamabad in a bind: It cannot clinch the Taliban deal for Washington: It cannot compensate its jihadi mercenaries with escalated action in Jammu, Kashmir or Ladakh. Its position is unenviable: To exit a cul-de-sac one must go back the way one entered but this route is not open to Pakistan. In the Mahabharata, Abhimanyu did not know how to escape the chakravyu; Imran does but it is just not possible.

Scholars Asma Khalid and Mobeen Jafar Mir of the think tank, Islamabad Policy Institute, blame Pakistan for failing to anticipate and challenge India’s hollowing of Article 370 despite clear signals. In a report, Abrogation of Article 370: Implications & Policy Choices for Pakistan, they urge Islamabad to launch a diplomatic blitzkrieg against India by emphasising the “disputed status of Kashmir”, highlighting India’s alleged human rights excesses and the threats to regional stability.

In a clear sign of Islamabad’s political bankruptcy and lack of choices, Khalid and Mir urged their Government to work for convening an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the situation; at the “closed meeting” the four other permanent members said changing Jammu & Kashmir’s Constitutional status is India’s internal matter. Islamabad is unlikely to accept the suggestion to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) after its resounding defeat in the matter of consular access to Indian citizen Kulbhushan Jadhav.

Khalid and Mir bemoan the loss of Jammu & Kashmir’s separate Constitution, flag and autonomy in all matters barring foreign affairs, defence and communications. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), they say, always proclaimed its intentions in its election manifestoes and in 2019, reiterated its determination to annul the Kashmir-specific Articles 370 and 35A.

Article 35A, introduced via Presidential order under Article 370 in 1954, empowered the State Legislature to define permanent residents and barred Indians from outside the state from permanently settling, buying land, holding local Government jobs or winning education scholarships there. It also barred female residents (and their children) from property rights in the event of marriage outside Kashmir. The spirit behind this legislation was to protect the identity and culture of Kashmiris and preserve Kashmir’s demographic character.

Interestingly, the scholars allege that the BJP’s agenda is to secure demographic change in the Valley through resettlement of refugees from West Pakistan, Azad Kashmir and Chhamb. It is true that the BJP has been concerned about justice for the refugees, who entered Jammu & Kashmir during Partition and after, and the Scheduled Castes invited by Sheikh Abdullah to clean the city on promise of citizenship. However, Abdullah, supported by former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, later denied them State subject status and its accompanying benefits. The issue is now redundant with the extension of the Constitution of India in its entirety to the new Union Territory.

Azad Kashmir is a sliver of Jammu Province, where pro-Pakistan radicals created trouble for Maharaja Hari Singh in 1946. Pakistan dubbed it as Azad Kashmir when it seized the area in 1947-48. Chhamb in Hamirpur district of Himachal Pradesh was an area of conflict in the 1965 and 1971 wars. Khalid and Mir charge that India will try to enhance Hindu representation in the Valley to reduce the influence of Kashmiri (read Muslim) political parties in the event of a plebiscite under UN auspices, an idea scotched by Kofi Annan in 2001.

Moreover, the Security Council Resolution of 1948 is explicit that Pakistan must withdraw all military and civilian personnel from the occupied territory who were not there before August 14, 1947; India is to retain its military in Srinagar to administer the plebiscite. Hence, the Pakistani scholars’ attempt to project India as an occupying power in the kingdom of Maharaja Hari Singh is a non-starter.

Pakistani fears that India’s action of August 5, 2019, may impact the Indus Water Treaty are premature as India can achieve much by merely utilising its legitimate share of the Indus waters. As for the occupied territories, Home Minister Amit Shah has reiterated India’s claim to the undivided kingdom, including Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan, and Aksai Chin. Pakistan would do well to focus on its internal problems.

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

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

Our diplomatic offensive at UNSC was weather-proofed enough to drown out both Pakistan and China

Given the suddenness of the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, its bifurcation and changed status to a Union Territory, Modi 2.0, in contrast, had amply prepared its diplomatic offensive, anticipating queries, anxieties and sensitivities of the Big Five members of the United Nations, other world leaders and predictable hitbacks from neighbours Pakistan and China. So although China, being an all-weather friend of Pakistan, backed its push for an informal consultation on Kashmir in the UN Security Council, in the end there was status quo on it being a bilateral matter and acceptance that abrogation of Article 370 was facilitated by a legal clause and, therefore, qualified as an internal matter of India compliant with its statutes. Even US President Donald Trump, who had stirred up a hornet’s nest by offering to mediate, has now advised Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan to settle the issue within the bilateral framework. Having failed to internationalise Kashmir enough, a desperate Pakistan did not relent, calling Kashmir a “nuclear flashpoint” even after the UNSC rebuff. While it is but expected to keep the storm and fury going, if only to justify its long-term politics, fact is that the US has made its value to it contingent upon its role in managing the Taliban in Afghanistan post its intended pullout from the region. Besides, the Trump administration has also cut back some funding to it despite Khan’s latest visit to Washington. The huff and puff is, therefore, posturing for a long-held constituency that it has nurtured in the Valley, which has been tamed by India’s pitch of Pakistan-exported terror camouflaging itself as self-determination, and now the complete revocation of special status which swamps all separatist sentiments. Truth be told, even India had clouded the “no first use” theorem a day before, saying it could be reviewed depending on the nature of external provocation. Our western neighbour, too, took off on this statement. India has anyway been predicating the Kashmir question on a tremendous threat perception from Pakistan just as the latter is seeking to externalise our internal matter. To that extent, this bluster works for both. Of course, the lockdown of the information highway has not helped either and strengthened stereotypes rather than reconciliation. If the government indeed wants to push its development narrative, then a tight-fisted channelisation of information is clearly counter-productive. There has to be a mature way of dealing with protests on the subversion of what has held together Kashmir’s matrix with us since Independence. And a jackboots approach to suppressing debate in a digital age may actually quite backfire and damage the tide of opinion in our favour at the moment.  

China may not be too happy about the UT status to Ladakh that would give India strategic heft in a region that lies next to Aksai Chin. But so long as the Line of Actual Control is as it is, it won’t have any ground to push its belligerence on Kashmir. China, which got the Shaksgam Valley in 1963 from Pakistan, has so far argued that its claim there is contingent on the final resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Now it is part of the UT of Ladakh, nullifying that legitimacy. But China will have to unwillingly accept this considering that it is looking at greater economic cooperation with India and wouldn’t want to jeopardise that template of neutrality with a resurrection of border issues. Besides, if it accuses India of making territorial changes, then it also is not exactly immune to helping Pakistan make those changes courtesy the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Its own oppressive role in the Hong Kong protests and Tibet has denied it a moral standpoint at a global forum. And it is this record that didn’t wash with other members. Over the years, China has been pushing its agenda of winning hearts of Ladakhis through its own kind of cultural diplomacy, influencing several Buddhist sects and groups and playing them against each other. It has been funding monasteries in the area to link them to the larger Chinese Buddhism, a strategy which has allowed it to make inroads in the Buddhist countries of Southeast Asia too. Given Dalai Lama’s ill health, China is already preparing to have a say in the dominant Tibetan Buddhism in the region. The reorganisation now allows New Delhi direct decision-making and first-hand engagement with the Buddhists of Ladakh and could well strengthen  Himalayan Buddhism as a counterpoint. China may be an irritant but depending on the relevance of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), that allows it a backhand entry to India without pushing the Belt and Road Initiative, and its stumbling trade block with the US, it is but posturing at the moment.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

The chances of Hong Kong turning into ‘Tiananmen Square 2’ are not remote, a few believe. However, for many in international politics, if the Chinese Government comes into direct confrontation with the protesters, it will permanently change the liberal atmosphere and political freedom available to the islanders

Hong Kong is no more an “Economic City” for mainland China. It’s turned itself into a massive political hotbed. Protest is not ebbing away. The city has entered into the third month of demonstrations. Gradually, the protesters are making the city a theatre of all political activities. Starting from the resignation of city chief Carrie Lam, they have started demanding full autonomy from the central Government in Beijing, an independent commission to investigate police brutality, and wider political reforms to allow for direct elections to elect the representatives of the Legislative Council. The way the demonstrations are carried out and the black-clad vanguards are handling the current situation, it seems it would not bring an end to the crisis sooner or later. Are they inviting another “Tiananmen Square” type crackdown that struck China way back in June 1989. Will the communist bosses in Beijing allow them the kind of autonomy the Hong Kongers are demanding? How long the crisis in the island will continue? For many in international politics, these are baffling questions that might take away the existing liberal atmosphere and political freedom available to the islanders forever if the Chinese Government directly comes in confrontation with the protesters.

This summer, Hong Kong has witnessed the worst political turmoil ever since the territory’s handover to China in July 1997. The current bout of protests stated with a demand for withdrawing the controversial extradition law proposed by the city Government. And eventually, that Bill was dropped by the Legislative Council for an indefinite period, as Lam clarified.

There is another question: is Hong Kong still crucial for China? Experts say that if China behaves more in Mao-era style, it might have to depend on the island more in commercial terms than political perspective. As China has not brought financial and legal reforms demanded by the global business enterprises, it would have been possible for the Communist Party leadership to make Hong Kong gradually irrelevant for long-term business transactions. But what has happened is that China, particularly under Xi Jinping, has grown beyond the traditional Communist closet. China has reached out to almost all destinations of the globe. China has grown fast and entered into the globalised world at ease, but it has not opened up as it was expected in the West.

This has made the economy of Hong Kong critically important for mainland China. The most important aspect of its economy is that it has been successful in registering a status within a body of international laws and rules around the world. This has made Hong Kong possible to provide it seamless access to the privileged western markets. This status has many aspects: a higher credit rating, low risk weights for banks, and counter party exposures, the ability to clear dollars at ease, independent membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), equivalent status of its stock exchange in the US, Europe and Japan, recognised as a developed stock market by global index firms and cooperation agreements with a number of top security regulators. Besides, most of the foreign direct investment (FDI) mainly flows through Hong Kong. The stock domiciled in the island territory has nearly doubled in the last decade up to $2 trillion. Despite the islanders developing suspicious attitude towards mainland China, the territory’s share of total FDI flowing into the latter, has remained stable at 60 per cent. This is very striking. It must be admitted that China has become an international growth machine. The Government has turned the country and its massive human resources into a hub of foreign investment opportunities. Needless to say that this has resulted into a situation where the movement of the FDI flowing into the country has increased at an alarming rate. But the reality is that most of the global investors always prefer to have a legal stamp from Hong Kong. This is because of China’s direct refusal to carry out major reforms as demanded by a global market economy.

Besides being an Asian financial hub, Hong Kong hosts major regional headquarters of the giant multi-national corporations. And ironically, even after the withdrawal of British suzerainty over the island since July 1997, such offices have increased by two-thirds to 1,500. But the American techno giants such as the Amazon, Google and Facebook have settled their offices in Singapore. With the protests raging to a record high level, there has been constant fears that many of such regional offices might move to Singapore in the near future.

A direct military intervention by China is quite unlikely for now. It seems, the Xi administration is solely banking on the leadership of Lam and Hong Kong Police for sending the protesters back home. By all possibilities, Lam administration is hoping that the protesters will lose steam soon. Even the security experts feel that very fast popular support would be dwindling for them. Initially, parents were marching with their children. But then now mostly young ones are on the road and their parents are highly concerned about the growing violence that is fast engulfing the entire movement. Many of the parents are not giving pocket money to their wards so that they have to head home soon. Another expectation is that with the beginning of the new academic session from early September, the college and university students have to go back to their classrooms.

Currently, China and America are locked in a trade war. Thus Trump is cheering the protesters in Hong Kong and is also saying that Chinese troops are moving towards the border with the island. In fact, China knows very well that Trump has a formidable weapon to use in the form of Hong Kong Policy Act 1992 that recognises Hong Kong as a separate legal and economic entity from China. It also makes Hong Kong an open economy by all standards. This might stop China from intervening in the territory directly in the form of a military attack. This will eventually breach the above act.

But the bottom line is that continued protest will block all the avenues for a peaceful advocacy of resolving the conundrum for now and in future as well. Hope the protesters listen to the writings on the wall. Else Hong Kong will soon be turning into a boiling point of Asia. This will provide more ammunition to the Chinese army to intervene just to maintain the law and order situation in its own territory.

(The writer is an expert on international affairs)

Writer: Makhan Saikia
Courtesy: The Pioneer

One reason why China has not been able to chide India on Article 370 is because it is facing a crisis in Hong Kong

Diplomats will tell you that China bristles at any perceived ‘interference’ in its ‘internal affairs’ and for years the fear of hitback has meant that it has been able to get away with gross human rights violations without even a slap on the wrist. Whether it is brutality against the Tibetan population with crackdowns in Lhasa, the long-standing assault on  members of the Falun Gong sect or even the current repression against the Uighur community in northern Xinjiang, none has elicited a  unified condemnation. Ever since 1989, when China was roundly lambasted for the military crackdown in Tiananmen Square, where hundreds are estimated to have died, it has not taken kindly to being warned about its actions. Meanwhile in the 30 years following the military action in Beijing, it has become such a global economic powerhouse that it punishes those nations that criticise it with a breath of dragon fire to their existing trade deals.

The problem with Hong Kong though is a bit more complicated. The territory, which China got from the UK in 1997, is still nominally autonomous. So when it made an attempt to subjugate it by seeking to extradite criminals from Hong Kong to the mainland, which has its own laws, this predictably outraged several locals, who have grown to love their special status and the far more liberal justice system. Coming on the back of intense protests last year, popularly called the ‘Umbrella Movement’, to other proposals made by Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, a governor appointed by Beijing, these protests were destined to be intense. But nobody could imagine just how widespread they would be or how they would be a culmination of long-held oppression. Thanks to the fact that Hong Kong still has a lot of expatriate workers and a free Press, China has not been able to crack down on the protesters without the world knowing. The impact has been devastating with Hong Kong Airport, one of the region’s biggest hubs, shut down after protesters effectively barricaded it and the central business district. There have even been reports of violence, mainly by the police and some unknown ‘thugs’ whom many suspect are Chinese agents. China has not been happy to see the protests beamed on live television across the world and while itching to press the trigger finger realises it cannot. It has reacted angrily to suggestions by countries, particularly Hong Kong’s former rulers, the UK, to calm the situation. But for India, this also allows China to be more pragmatic when it comes to our position on Kashmir.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

India and China’s contradiction at the RCEP summit does not stop their cooperation for another endeavor.

The latest round of the 16-member Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) negotiations has yet again exposed frictions between Beijing and New Delhi, this time over the India-China trade deficit and market access.

New Delhi’s trade deficit with the RCEP grouping and China amounted to $105 billion and $53.6 billion in 2018, respectively. The tariff elimination under the RCEP may deal an additional blow to India’s economy, bolstering its trade deficit with the nations. In addition, New Delhi argues that it needs further access to the Chinese market for its key sectors, including IT products and services, pharma and agriculture.

Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal backed out of the group’s ministerial meeting in Beijing, which was largely seen as a symbolic gesture, according to The Hindu. As a result, India was represented by Commerce Secretary Anup Wadhawan, who outlined the country’s demands at the meeting on August 2-3. Despite speculations of India’s possible withdrawal from the bloc, the country signalled on August 6 that it would continue the talks, according to the Hindu Business Line.

Amid the simmering US-China trade war, Beijing is pushing ahead with the RCEP, a proposed free trade agreement between the 10  member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as well as China, Japan, India, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand that was formally announced in 2012.

Why India snubs China’s Belt and Road initiative?

The RCEP is not the only China-led economic initiative prompting India’s concerns. The Beijing-led Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a multi-billion infrastructure investment endeavour unveiled by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013, also raises questions in New Delhi.

While neither clearly rejecting nor endorsing the initiative per se, New Delhi boycotted the first Belt and Road Forum (BRF) for International Cooperation in 2017 over the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project. The proposed corridor passes through the Pakistani-administered Kashmir areas of Gilgit and Baltistan, claimed by New Delhi. The implementation of the Chinese-Pakistani initiative is tantamount to the recognition of Islamabad’s sovereignty over Gilgit-Baltistan in the eyes of India.

“The BRI, which seeks to alter extant political geographies and economic models, is China’s most potent tool in this regard. India is not part of this due to the violation of its sovereignty in CPEC passing from Pakistani-occupied Kashmir”, explains Amrita Dhillon, the founding editor of a New Delhi-based magazine, The Kootneeti.

On April 26-27, 2019, India did not attend the second BRF that took place in Beijing amid the simmering India-Pakistani conflict following the Indian Air Force’s Balakot operation in February 2019. For its part, India triggers China’s unease with its growing involvement in joint drills with the navies of Japan, Vietnam, Singapore and the Philippines as well as the US-led freedom of navigation operations (FONOP) in the disputed South China Sea, about 90 per cent of which is claimed by the People’s Republic.

Nevertheless, Beijing is seeking India’s participation in its endeavours: Being the world’s seventh-largest economy by nominal gross domestic product (GDP) and the third-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP), India could give a significant boost to China-led projects.

Thus, in July, Yang Yanyi, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, called upon India to join the BRI, arguing that “bilateral problems with Pakistan should not be turned into an India-China issue.”

Simmering contradictions do not mean that India and China are heading towards a stalemate, according to Adam Garrie, director of the Eurasia Future think-tank and Tom McGregor, a Beijing-based political analyst and senior editor for China’s national broadcaster CCTV.

AIIB is a way to soothe India-China contradictions:

Observers believe that the China-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’s (AIIB) initiatives may facilitate soothing of India-China relations.

Being founded in 2014, the bank is largely seen as a part of the Belt and Road project, although the two endeavours are not formally associated.

While the Modi Government has made it clear that it is not inclined to participate in the China-led BRI, India remains the bank’s founder. New Delhi enjoys the second-largest voting share in the financial institution after China. Additionally, India is one of the largest recipients of AIIB funds.

In February 2019, India and the AIIB inked a $455 million loan aimed at improving rural connectivity in Andhra Pradesh. According to the Indian Ministry of Finance, the project will “connect some 3,300 habitations with a population of more than 250, and benefit around two million people.”

“India’s rural regions remain largely impoverished and for the entire nation to succeed that requires more balanced regional development alongside urbanisation, industrialisation and modernisation campaigns”, McGregor presumes, adding that the AIIB “can play a crucial role to help eradicate poverty in the country.”

Having mentioned anti-China sentiment among Indian nationalist parties, the Beijing-based journalist opines that the improvement of India-China ties could become a win-win solution for both nations.

“Should [Indian Prime Minister Narendra] Modi choose economic expansionism, he must improve trade and investment ties with China and the US”, McGregor believes.

Adam Garrie echoes McGregor: “Although India has been opposed to membership in the Belt and Road initiative, India can and likely will benefit from closer cooperation with the AIIB”, the UK-based geopolitical analyst notes.

“It makes logical sense for India to work with the AIIB just as it does for countries like Turkey, Russia, Indonesia and Thailand”, Garrie says. “As such, the old expression ‘money talks’ is apropos when it comes to India’s position via-a-vis the AIIB. As things stand, India already participates in some BRI related projects but for political reasons will not likely ever sign up to BRI on the whole. That being said, AIIB is one important area where India and China can minimise tensions through win-win financial arrangement.”

According to Amrita Dhillon, “India is not opposed to China.” “In fact, it has always wished to promote mutual trade and shape relations between the two and join hands in focussing on innovative solutions for the Asian problems”, she points out.

However, the Indian journalist notes that China, for its part, needs to take India’s geostrategic interests into account in order to facilitate the development of the region.

“China and India share a long history of cooperation and AIIB is one of the important roads which connects Beijing and New Delhi”, Dhillon emphasises. “As of now, AIIB has approved six projects worth $1.2 billion in loans to India for infrastructure-related projects and an additional $1.9 billion is under review. Similarly, India’s cooperation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) with China is growing, rapidly making it a platform to tap the potential of the relations India carries with the Central Asian Countries.”

(Courtesy: SputnikInternational)

Writer: Ekaterina Blinova

Courtesy: The Pioneer