News Destination For The Global Indian Community
News Destination For The Global Indian Community
CHINA’S GAMBIT PART 1: The Genesis of the Issue
by Percival Billimoria / 08 October 2020Emergence of the dragon as the global bully
Since the outbreak of the pandemic, China has puzzled many by assuming the role of a global bully. Contrary to the Sino-British declaration of 1984, it subverted the democratic process in Hong Kong, and openly threatens to invade Tai-wan, at one point, reportedly exhorting its soldiers to write goodbye letters to their families. Despite the ruling of the Tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, (that it has no legal basis to claim the resources within its so-called “ninedash line”), it continues to claim exclusive dominion over the South China Sea, and snarls at any international presence. It breathes fire at Australia for “daring to” question its role in the outbreak of COVID19 and threatened the speaker of the Czech Republic’s senate saying it would pay a “heavy price” for visiting Taiwan.
In June, the PLA walked into the Himalayan region bordering India, up-setting the equilibrium across an un-demarcated border (the “line of actual control”) which has sustained without a gunshot being fired in anger for more than five decades. Having first occupied a buffer zone area, it then had the audacity to unilaterally claim large swathes of the region to be its own.
While there may be strands of truth in the several explanations for this belligerence, (ranging from internal pressures to taking advantage of a distracted world), analysts are yet to formulate a coherent view of the problematic conduct.
When the cold war ended, military planners wondered which war they should plan for against which enemy. The belief that it was now a unipolar world ignored the fact that only one of the two communist regimes of the world had imploded. This consensus, coupled with the fact that the cold war had also exhausted the West, led it to brush the Tiananmen Square massacre under the carpet, after some clucking of tongues. Within a short time thereafter, China became a member of the WTO.
China knew that a kinetic war with the West was out of the question. The meltdown of the Soviet Bloc illustrated the dangers of economic isolation. The West did not realise the dangers of a totalitarian regime whose advent into the W.T.O now afforded it the opportunity to first ensure that it would not collapse under its own weight, unlike its Bolshevik neighbour and thereafter to strengthen its economic power to the point where it would seek to colonise much of Asia, Africa and Central Europe.
When China became a member of the W.T.O. in 2000-01, the West believed, in the words of President Clinton, that “It represents the most significant opportunity that we have had to create positive change in China”. Acknowledging that “China is a one-party state that does not tolerate opposition. It does deny citizens fundamental rights of free speech and religious expression. It does defend its interests in the world, and sometimes in ways that are dramatically at odds from our own”, Mr. Clinton then articulated the great blunder in the belief that “Membership in the W.T.O., of course, will not create a free society in China overnight or guarantee that China will play by global rules. But over time, I believe it will move China faster and further in the right direction, and certainly will do that more than rejection would”.
The engagement with China, in direct contrast to the shunning of the Soviet Union, was predicated on the expectation of its tariffs falling by half or more, enabling access to the biggest market in the world. Mr. Clinton’s words on that fateful day are telling. He went on to state that, “… our companies will be able to sell and distribute products in China made by workers here in America without being forced to relocate manufacturing to China, sell through the Chinese government, or transfer valuable technology — for the first time. We’ll be able to export products without exporting jobs”.
One barely resists the temptation to scoff. Considering that it was the isolation of the Soviet bloc which caused it to self-destruct, one wonders whether the expectation of a communist regime changing “in the right direction” is attributable to the naivety of the times, or the fact that the U.S. and the West believed that supporting China’s entry into the W.T.O., was in their economic interests. Clearly, the threat perception from a “third world nation” failed to take into account a truism – that an economic system cannot be divorced from the political framework. While Karl Marx’s ideals are commendable, the difficulty is that communism, as an economic system necessarily requires a dictatorial form of Government. One does not have to be a historian to understand that the two (communism and totalitarian regimes) cannot be decoupled. Nor does one need to have studied history to know that Stalin and Mao were strongmen, who would not blink at genocide for the sake of their ideology. One cannot remember them today without thinking of Siberia and the gulags. China convinced world leaders, fatigued by the cold war and believing in the invincibility of the capitalist system, that it was only a different system of Government born, after all, of a revolution of the people but which was business oriented.
The scourge of the world was the communist regime of the Soviet Union and not its people, who were oppressed and denied of all rights, just as the Chinese people remain victims of the Chinese Communist Party. Unfortunately, the world has yet to realise the dangers of a totalitarian communist regime. A China believing in the supremacy of its Han ancestors and its culture and the inevitability of it becoming the dominant global power, cannot be persuaded to “change in the right direction” by doing business with it. The direction it sets out for itself has nothing to do with Western democratic ideals. Given this, it is not difficult to see why China (mis) used free trade to garner economic power. How they did so, and the propensity of the West to turn a blind eye as long as there is a perceived economic benefit is another story worth telling.
Milking his illness
by Opinion Express / 07 October 2020US President Donald Trump has joined the list of world leaders who have been diagnosed with Covid-19, but like the United Kingdom’s Boris Johnson and Brazil’s Jair Bolsanaro, he is also a leader who was once sceptical of the virus. Bolsanaro was quarantined for a couple of weeks and Johnson was hospitalised and even administered oxygen. So far, Trump appears, at least from what we hear, to have escaped the worst. Yet, unlike the other two, Trump is in the midst of election season. Indeed, voting day for the US Presidential election is under one month away. But instead of convalescing, he has used the last few days to actively campaign, and while we are unaware of the advice doctors have given him, one is pretty sure that keeping his mask on in public is one of them. And his bravado may do more harm than good.
But Trump has always been a bit fast and loose with facts and best practices surrounding the pandemic. He is right in calling out China’s double standards and hypocrisy around the virus but by not taking the impact of the pandemic seriously enough, many lives have been lost in the US. However, in his defence, Trump’s position right now is a delicate one. He is not a young man and the US Presidential election is a tiring one, particularly given the bizarre way the US conducts it. This involves large amounts of travel across a geographically large country and his precarious health will affect his campaigning. We are still not aware if Trump’s diagnosis will impact the US Presidential election but it also highlights how uniquely susceptible politicians and the political process are to the pandemic. While education and some other sectors have switched to working from home, politics by its very nature involves social gatherings. In India, we do not know how adverse or otherwise the Bihar polls will be in the spreading of the virus but we could hope that it is now weaker than it was and best practices have been put in place. Trump should also be very careful, not just for his own health but those of his most ardent supporters as well.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Don’t test our patience
by A Surya Prakash / 06 October 2020It is high time that the UN recognises India’s potential and its contribution to the organisation and makes it a permanent member of the Security Council
Addressing the historic 75th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi yet again made a forceful plea for reforming this international body and making the UN Security Council (UNSC) more representative and balanced. Modi had flagged this issue six years ago when he addressed the UNGA for the first time as India’s Prime Minister in September 2014. On that occasion, he told the member countries that no one country or group of countries can determine the course of the world. There has to be a genuine international partnership. This is not just a moral position but a practical reality and these efforts should begin with the UN. “We must reform the United Nations, including the Security Council, and make it more democratic and participative”, or else it could “face the risk of irrelevance” if it remained resistant to change. The Prime Minister was obviously emphasising India’s right to be a permanent member of the UNSC, a status enjoyed by the P-5 — US, UK, France, Russia and China — who are also armed with extraordinary veto powers.
He returned to this theme once again when he addressed the UNGA last month. Referring to the circumstances prevailing in 1945 when the UN came into being, he told his audience that members were now in a completely different era — the 21st century. Therefore, the international community must ask itself whether the character of the institution, constituted in 1945, was relevant even today? He spoke of the regard that the people of India have for the UN and said they wonder whether the reform process will ever reach its logical conclusion. “For how long will India be kept out of the decision-making structures of the United Nations?...When we were strong, we did not trouble the world; when we were weak, we did not become a burden on the world. How long will such a country have to wait?”
The Prime Minister was echoing the sentiments of 1.35 billion citizens of the country when he hinted that India’s patience was running thin. Indians find it difficult to fathom why their country is kept out, especially when it has such strong credentials. It is the world’s largest and most vibrant democracy with 911 million electors, of whom over 600 million exercised their franchise in 2019. It is also the most diverse nation in the world with unparalleled ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity and home to all the major religions in the world. Indians speak 121 languages and 270 dialects. Further, India accounts for 18 per cent of the global population and will overtake China and become the most populous nation by 2027. Add to this its economic and military strength — it is the fifth-largest economy and one of the top five military powers in the world. Finally, it is a founding member of the UN, one of the 26 signatories at the first conference in 1942 and has made a phenomenal contribution to the organisation’s peace-keeping efforts across the world. Are these not enough reasons for India to be a permanent member of the UNSC?
As proud citizens of the world’s largest and most vibrant democracy, Indians also have the right to demand that the UN remain faithful to its own fundamental postulates. Is it not strange that the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations reaffirms faith “in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small…” and yet, actively promotes a hierarchy of nations and consequently, of human beings? How can India, which has equality as a fundamental precept in its Constitution, accept this form of graded membership?
Further, Article 2 of the Charter says the UN is based on the sovereign equality of all members. How is this achieved when a nation with almost one-fifth of the global population is not a permanent member of the UNSC whereas two European nations — UK (67 million) and France (65 million), each with a population equivalent to just one of India’s 28 states (Karnataka) — are permanent members of the UNSC? Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter are also wholly undemocratic because even if two-thirds of the members of the UN agree to amend the Charter, any of the five permanent members of the UNSC can use its veto power to block the amendment. This is absolutely undemocratic and unworthy of being part of any civilised institution in the democratic world. Why should the world’s largest democracy put up with this? These articles enable members of the P-5 to play politics and stonewall reform. That is why the efforts of the G-4 (India, Brazil, Japan and Germany) to support each other’s bid for a permanent seat in the UNSC have not thus far fructified.
The international community must understand that India’s patience, despite all its philosophical underpinnings, is not inexhaustible and that there is a new India emerging — optimistic, self-confident and self-reliant (atmanirbhar). It is true that seven decades ago, given India’s economic plight after centuries of colonisation, it lacked the gumption to stand up and demand its rightful place. But that is not the India of today. This is not a tame India. This is a bold India. A billion-plus citizens of this nation are no longer willing to accept these inequities as part of their karma and reconcile themselves to the second-class status thrust on them 75 years ago.
India is shaking off the delusions of the past. It has shed its innocence and gullibility that was in full display during the “Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai” days and has realised that it must become strong and resilient to promote peace in its neighbourhood and the world. The Chinese are getting a taste of this, and as the momentum picks up, other nations too will begin to sense it. This is irreversible. Having nudged his countrymen towards this new thinking, Modi is sensing the change. That is why he made a specific reference to the aspirations of the people vis-à-vis UN reform. India will celebrate the 75th anniversary of its independence in 2022. The UN must use the occasion to redeem itself, acknowledge that democracy is the most civilised political system ever devised by man and invite India to the high table.
(The writer is an author specialising in democracy studies. Views expressed are personal)
Will 2020 end with a Third World War?
by Anil Gupta / 05 October 2020The world community will have to wait anxiously and watch the simmering conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan for the next few weeks
While the global community was glued to eastern Ladakh and the South China Sea (SCS) as flashpoints that may endanger global peace due to growing Chinese belligerence, another conflict has emerged in the Caucasus region. This area lies between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, mainly occupied by Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and parts of southern Russia. The region is the lifeline of oil supply to neighbouring countries with major pipelines passing through here. It also serves as the border between Asia and Europe.
On September 27, a long-simmering conflict in the south Caucasus once again burst into open clashes between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The cause of the ongoing battle, which soon may erupt into an all-out war since both nations have declared martial law, is the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. The control of this enclave was ceded to Armenia in 1994 after a bloody separatist conflict.
Universally, Nagorno-Karabakh is accepted as part of Azerbaijan. Both countries have been fighting each other since then at irregular intervals. The latest provocation dates back to July this year when Armenia killed a general and other officers of Azerbaijan’s military in a missile strike, leading to a big uproar in Baku which swore to take revenge soon. Azerbaijan was buoyed by the immediate Turkish offer to prepare for the response.
Nagorno-Karabakh proper has an area of about 4,400 square kilometres but Armenian forces occupy large swathes of the adjacent territory. Long-simmering tensions between majority Christian Armenians seeking union with Armenia and mostly Muslim Azeris began boiling over as the Soviet Union began to disintegrate in its final years. The USSR collapsed in 1991 and the republics became independent nations. In late 1991, a majority of Armenian inhabitants declared independence from Azerbaijan with Armenia’s support. It led to the emergence of the Republic of Artsakh, which to date remains unrecognised.
The efforts of Azerbaijan to reimpose its authority led to a fight for ownership, soon converting into the bloodiest war between the two neighbours. The war saw atrocities on both sides. A 1994 ceasefire left Armenian and Azerbaijani forces facing each other across a demilitarised zone, where clashes are frequently reported. The region has since been under the control of Armenian forces, though it is still internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan, as stated earlier. International mediation, including United Nations resolutions, have failed to resolve the crisis.
The new flashpoint has one thing in common to the other two, and that is the expansionist ambitions of another ultra-nationalist leader, the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Ever since his ascendancy to power, he has embroiled Turkey militarily in neighbouring countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, including the eastern Mediterranean region. He is on the opposite side of Russia in both Syria and Libya, leading to regional rivalry. Turkey is also pressing territorial claims in disputes with Greece and Cyprus, thus creating alarm among its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies. It has a powerful military, which has also led Erdogan to view himself as the future leader of the Muslim world, displacing the traditional royal house of Saud. This is just like Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is dreaming to be the world leader replacing the US President. Erdogan is also preparing a non-Arab Muslim alliance with the active connivance of Pakistan. His growing assertiveness in the region has changed his nation’s power dynamics.
While all other nations like India, China, the US, France, Iran and the European Union (EU) have asked both countries to refrain from a full-fledged war and return to the negotiating table to resolve the issue through dialogue, Turkey and Pakistan have offered open support to Azerbaijan and egged it on to liberate the disputed enclave from Armenian control.
French President Emmanuel Macron has warned Turkey to refrain from sending jihadists as mercenaries to the troubled area. It has also been reported that Pakistan has already sent Al Qaeda and Taliban jihadists to the area along with one unit of regular soldiers. Pakistan, which is already known as the fountainhead of terror, wants to convert this region into another epicentre of jihadist terror like Afghanistan. The majority jihadists, despite being Sunnis, are willing to fight alongside the Shiite Azeris against Armenians because they consider it as a holy war between the Muslims and the Christians. While Vatican has also called for restraint, both Pakistan and Turkey are encouraging Azerbaijan to continue the fight and have expressed their solidarity towards Muslim brotherhood. Pakistan is also keen to develop the area into another zone of Muslim liberation like Palestine and Kashmir. Whether this has the covert support of China is not yet clear but both Turkey and Pakistan enjoy good relations with each other.
The geopolitics of the region is very complicated. Turkey and Pakistan have military alliances with Azerbaijan, while Armenia has a similar treaty with Russia, which has a military base in Armenia. Russia also enjoys good relations with Azerbaijan and is its major arms supplier. Russia, France and the US jointly chair the Minsk Group, which was founded in 1992 by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, now known as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to try and find a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. All the three nations have close ties with Armenia. Turkey, being an important NATO member, has caused an imminent crack in the organisation with France and the US inclined towards Armenia.
Armenia has responded to the peace call by the Minsk Group but Azerbaijan’s response is not yet known. Israel is an arms supplier to Azerbaijan but with Turkey openly supporting Azerbaijan and its newly-formed ties with Muslim nations in the Middle East, it has put Israel in a Catch-22 situation. Iran shares borders and is also friendly with both the nations. But in case of a religious war, it would have to decide to support Azerbaijan or stay neutral.
With global terror outfits moving into the area and more Muslim countries backing Azerbaijan, the situation is getting polarised. India, too, has a stake in the region. The North-South Corridor linking Mumbai to Moscow via Chabahar passes through Azerbaijan. India will not like the region to become another jihadist terror hub.
Outright war could put key pipelines at risk. Any direct involvement by Turkey will push Russia into the war. France has already warned Turkey. A direct attack on Armenia would invoke its defence pact with Russia and draw it into the conflict. In case of a Muslim versus Christian fight, many countries, including the EU, are likely to join, splitting the NATO. This would have repercussions beyond the region as well. If China decides to join its friends, Pakistan and Turkey, it may lead to a Third World War. But with China tied down in a confrontation with India and US-backed Taiwan, it is less likely.The world will have to wait anxiously and watch the happenings of the next two-three weeks to determine if 2020 will end peacefully or not. Yes, world peace is at stake.
(The author is a Jammu-based security and strategic analyst)
Azerbaijan-Armenia war: Stakes high for neighbours
by Makhan Saikia / 04 October 2020The renewed armed conflict has hogged global limelight because of the involvement of regional rivals Turkey and Russia. Now French role in the conflict has given it a new twist
The renewed conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the two former Soviet republics, heralds a new era of tension in the Caucasus region. This war is an absolute violation of the ceasefire agreement signed by the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia in October 2017 under the auspices of the Minsk Group in Geneva. The Minsk Group is a mediation group created by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to settle conflict by exploring all possible avenues in this two neighbouring nations. It is widely believed that the current hostilities point towards a total breakdown of the mediation efforts, increased militarisation by both the parties and finally, a failure of the international organisations to offer a plausible framework for settlement of the dispute.
The root of the war between these two countries is a self-declared region called “Nagorno-Karabakh”, which is claimed as part of their sovereign territories. Nagorno or Nagorno-Karabakh is the modern name of an area located in the Southern Caucasus region. The word “Karabakh” comes from the Turkish and Persian which means “Black Garden”. It dates back to Georgian and Persian sources from the 13th and 14th centuries. It refers to an Armenian principality called as Artsakh or Khatchenby the modern chroniclers.
This conflict dates back to nearly a century of recent political developments in the erstwhile USSR. In the 1920s, the then Soviet Government under Lenin established the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAR) within Azerbaijan. The NKAR consisted of 95 per cent ethnic Armenian population. Under the Soviet Bolshevik regime, the simmering tension between Azerbaijan and Armenia were kept under check by the powerful Russian Army. But the gradual collapse of the Communist regime of the USSR in the 1990s led to the rise of differences between these two bordering republics. In fact by 1988, the NKAR Legislature passed a historic resolution to join Armenia, knowing full well that the region is physically located within Azerbaijan. Those were the days, the world was about to witness the imminent fall of an order created by Lenin way back in 1917. And it all came with full chaos, confusion and reversal of the global power calculus. As tensions rose on both sides of the border in Armenia and Azerbaijan, Sumgait pogrom (1988), Baku pogrom (1990) and Khojaly Massacre (1992) took place, sending shock waves across the world. On December 31, 1991, the USSR was formally on the way to dissolution, and the autonomous region declared independence from Azerbaijan on January 6, 1992, inviting immediate trouble from both Armenia and Azerbaijan. The first war that took place between Azerbaijan and Armenia from 1988-94 saw the death of more than 30,000 people and the displacement of an estimated one million people. The NKAR has been traditionally inhabited by ethnic Christian Armenians and Muslim Turks. The biggest irony is that though Armenia fully backs the NKAR, it has never ever officially recognised the status of the region.
On the ground, what is happening is the death of hundreds of soldiers and civilians on both sides. The rival armies are accusing each other of shelling across the Line of Control, separating forces in the contested Nagorno-Karabakh region. Interestingly, the enclave is officially a part of Azerbaijan, but governed by ethnic Armenians so far.
What Azerbaijan people feel is that Armenia is simply obstructing peace in the region. Thus, many of them are urging Armenia to vacate their land as early as possible. In addition to the Nagorno area, it is believed that Armenia has so far occupied seven more cities of Azerbaijan. What goes around in Azerbaijan is that Karabakh is an integral part of it. However, Armenia does not accept it. The allegations of occupation leveled against Armenia are thought to be a massive media campaign by Azerbaijan to malign its global image.
There is every possibility that this Nagorno-Karabakh tinderbox might lead to a larger war, involving major powers such as Turkey, France and Russia. Meanwhile French President Emmanuel Macron warned Turkey of sending warlike signals to Armenia. Macron is promising more support to Armenia. In the beginning of this week, he aired his view: “I say to Armenia and to the Armenians, France will play its role.” This clearly indicates that in case of a full-blown war, France will play a decisive role. It must be noted here that hundreds of thousands of French people are of Armenian descent. On the other hand, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is fully ready to help Azerbaijan recover the enclave. In fact, Turkey is an ally of Azerbaijan and closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in solidarity with the NKAR, when the first set of conflicts broke out between the two nations from 1988-1994.
In fact, Russia’s role is very complex in the conflict. It plays diverse, but at times takes contradictory positions. Interestingly, Moscow offers Armenia with security guarantees through established bilateral ties and Collective Security Treaty Organizations. But this does not extend to the current combat zone of the NKAR which is globally recognised as a part of Azerbaijan. Further, Russia supplies weapons to both the countries and also the co-chair of the Minsk Group. For now, Moscow has called for a ceasefire, but unlike the previous clashes that took place between these two former republics, Putin regime is yet to call for a high-level meeting between the high profile politico-military leaders of the warring nations.
The UNSC urgent meet on Nagorno-Karabakh this week has strongly condemned the use of force. The members of the UNSC have backed Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ call to stop the fighting, deescalate tensions and resume talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia without delay. Earlier the leaders from both the nations brushed off peace talks and accused each other of blocking negotiations at the moment. Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev has made it clear that Baku is committed to negotiating a resolution but Armenia is obstructing the entire process. As Armenia publicly declares Nagorno Karabakh as its integral part, how could there be a discussion on the issue, Aliyev complaints. He has also reminded the international community that as per the principles brokered by the Minsk Group, “territories around the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region should be transferred to Azerbaijan”. Further Aliyev contends that if Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan claims that “Karabakh is Armenia and that we should negotiate with the so-called puppet regime of Nagorno-Karabakh, he is trying to break the format of negotiations that existed for 20 years”. If this is the background, undoubtedly, Armenia’s claim over the NKAR is highly contested. But Yerevan has entirely different claim on the disputed enclave that leaves no place for Baku to claim and fight for ever. But Pashinyan clearly stated that when fierce military fights are on, there is no question of negotiation or talks. It is good that he is vying for a compromise instead of a military solution. But he wanted an immediate end of aggression on the part of Azerbaijan towards both NKAR and Armenia. He then says, “We all perceive this as an existential threat to our nation, we basically perceive it as a war that was declared to the Armenian people and our people are now simply forced to use the right for self-defence.” This demonstrates where the war is heading to. Even the Azerbaijan President has vowed to fight on until Armenian forces leave the disputed territory.
Considering the ground realities, the war seems to be dragging for a longer period. How France plays its part will certainly make a huge difference in the current scenario. It’s time for Yerevan and Baku to look for pragmatic solutions instead of counting which world power is on their side. Both need to understand that they can’t change their borders unless in case of a natural disaster or an all out war to change the status of the NKAR. Beyond the Minsk Group initiatives, the UN must work out a framework under which both the warring parties and the NKAR representatives could meet.
(The writer is an expert on international affairs)
Trump gets it!
by Opinion Express / 03 October 2020The US President and his wife, Melania Trump, have tested positive. Will he now change his views?
Many were incredulous that US President Donald Trump had contracted the Coronavirus when he tweeted that he and First Lady Melania had tested positive for the “Chinese Virus” as Trump refers to the Covid-19 infection. Some predicted that Trump was faking it in order to withdraw from the US Presidential elections on medical grounds. Others thought that he was faking it in order to prove to the public that the infection is mild and that his vigour and vitality are intact, and those panicking about the infection like Dr Anthony Fauci, the Presidential advisor on infectious diseases, are nothing but scare-mongers. Maybe, Trump is just one of those countless getting infected these days, and most countries, including India have proper protocols in place to manage the illness, which is why fatality rates are dropping significantly. The actions of the US Defence Forces, managed from the Pentagon, however, brought into stark relief these conspiracy theories with the US Air Force putting its airborne command centre EA-6B aircraft into the air. This plane ensures Government continuity in case of a nuclear strike and with the US adopting a bipartisan attitude of belligerence against China, this was also to send a message to any nation opposing it.
Trump will most likely have access to the best healthcare money can buy if he is indeed ill, because no matter what people say about his relationship with the truth, one should assume that people do not lie about their health, or rather falling prey to a pandemic. Also, given that the US makes its national leaders’ health a matter of public discussion, it would be almost impossible to fake the illness. This just proves that it remains important for everyone of us to continue to practise safe hygiene practices, meaning wearing masks, continuing social and physical distancing, washing our hands frequently and using sanitisers. While many people are indulging in “revenge travel,” now that flights and hotels are up and running, we just cannot afford to be lax. As Deep Kalra, Chief Executive of online travel agency MakeMyTrip, says, many resorts in and around major cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru were fully booked for the long weekend we are currently in. Trump is also proof that this disease, like any other airborne infectious disease, makes no distinctions about who to infect. Hope he recovers and revises his controversial views on the pandemic and acknowledges its seriousness.
Chaotic debate
by Opinion Express / 01 October 2020The live televised battles between candidates make the US stand out but at times they can be in shambles
Back in 1960, when the concept of live television was still unique and one where the United States had already grabbed a sizeable lead, the fledgling television networks of the nation tried something new — organise a debate between the candidates of the two parties. Back then it was John F Kennedy versus Richard Nixon and while today we think Kennedy won by a landslide, the 1960 election was controversial and close, a precursor to the problems that the US had in 2000 and 2016. Kennedy was the underdog and while he is today remembered as one of the most influential modern American Presidents, it was actually his performance in the televised debate where he came across as calm, confident and reassured the American public that his lack of political experience was not a challenge. Nixon, who had a slight fever on the day of the debate and was visibly sweating under the studio lights, was seen as lacking confidence. That debate set the political template in the US and while many other nations have tried the formula, few have managed to pull it off.
However, the debate between the current US President Donald Trump and his presumptive challenger Joe Biden, the former US Vice-President under Barack Obama, was an unmitigated disaster. If you can imagine two 70 plus-year-old men going at each other with a 50-year-old trying to control it, you kind of get the picture. This was not supposed to be a drawing room argument but it felt like one. Worse still, at times it felt like you were watching two panellists on a popular English news channel in India with stupid arguments learnt from Whatsapp. It made the world look on in horror at who will have his fingers on the world’s largest military arsenal of conventional and nuclear weapons. Sure, Chris Wallace, the debate moderator, let control of the debate slip from his hands and allowed Trump the usage of the bully pulpit, but let us all be clear, while Trump did not lose the debate, nobody really won. Far from the class and style of debates, something like this might have put more people off proper debates and even democracy. In 60 years, the US has come a long way indeed.
When the ugly past comes knocking
by Nadeem Paracha / 28 September 2020People wonder how did Pakistani society come to accept for 11 years the draconian laws and ordinances that Zia passed during his rule?
Recently, when social media in Pakistan exploded, condemning the rape of a woman on the Lahore motorway and the insensitive words used by Lahore’s Capital City Police Officer (CCPO) for the victim, there were also folks who suggested that the punishments for zina (rape and premarital sex) introduced in 1979 by the Zia-ul-Haq dictatorship, were successful in curbing sexual assaults in Pakistan. It wasn’t hard for those who disagreed with this perception to produce facts and figures to negate this claim.
But this piece is not about that. Instead, it is a response to those who were left baffled after learning the dynamics and technicalities of Zia’s laws in this context and inquired how society had accepted such laws for 11 years — the number of years the dictator General Zia was in power.
First of all, since women were most affected by these laws, which actually saw scores of them ending up in jail while their tormentors were set free, there was constant resistance from various women’s organisations against Zia. In fact, bodies such as the Women’s Action Forum (WAF) found themselves pushed on to the frontlines of the resistance, after many mainstream political outfits opposed to Zia were neutralised through arrests, jail sentences, disappearances, torture and exile.
Zia extracted power from above by being part of the military establishment and through the support that he received from the US and Saudi Arabia. To draw political support from below, he nourished those segments and constituencies that had been developed and activated by religious parties during the 1977 movement against the ZA Bhutto Government from 1972-77.
One can assume that had he failed to cultivate support from these segments, he would have struggled to introduce the series of controversial laws that his regime imposed in the name of faith.
Nevertheless, in 1988 when he passed away, he left behind a country wracked by escalating Sunni-Shia strife, the growth of militant sectarian and “Islamist” outfits whose leaders were brought into the mainstream to preach and practise armed jihad, a rise in hate crimes against minority sects and other religions, an onslaught on women’s rights and a generation of young Pakistanis ravaged by drug addiction, gun violence and embroiled in deadly ethnic and sectarian conflicts. Corruption in State and Government institutions, too, increased when the regime repealed anti-corruption laws enacted in 1973. Zia introduced “development funds” for members of his hand-picked national and provincial Assemblies and wrote off bank loans taken by his supporters. Many senior officers of the armed forces and members of Zia’s Cabinet were reported to have been involved in the narcotics trade and money laundering scams.
So why did so many Pakistanis go along with the charade of a regime which promised them a “new Pakistan” by claiming that it was going to finally create an “Islamic State” that it insisted was what Pakistan’s founders had been committed to deliver?
An increase in the rate of literacy from 1972 onwards meant that more urban Pakistanis were exposed to the writings and theories of scholars operating outside the intellectual and political realm of the “Muslim Modernism” of the country’s founders. By the late 1970s, they had begun to question the sincerity and feasibility of the modernist project. Because of the impact of the loss of East Pakistan in 1971, many tended to agree with the anti-modernists that the project had been engineered to keep an economic and political elite in power. An increase in the literacy rate saw young wo/men from the country’s small towns and villages furthering their studies in colleges and universities of main urban areas. When they arrived to take their place in educational institutions in cities such as Karachi and Lahore, the ethos of their traditional upbringing felt alienated and even threatened by the vocal Left and liberal groups on campuses. Consequently, they were embraced by Right-wing religious outfits.
Many of these students would go on to graduate and settle in cities and become part of urban Pakistan’s emerging new petty bourgeoisie and trader classes. What’s more, when these classes came out on the streets during the 1977 anti-Bhutto movement, they were backed by the industrialist and business classes, who were repulsed by the “Left-leaning” Bhutto regime. The movement’s slogan was Shariah law. So in Zia’s promise of an Islamic system, they could identify with what they believed was their true heritage and calling, whereas the industrialists and the businessmen yearned for a strong ruler who would reset the country’s economic direction back to what it had been before Bhutto’s chaotic “Socialism.”
According to Riaz Hassan in the anthology, Pakistan at Seventy, an increase in the urban population also had important social and political consequences. A large segment of the increasing population led a precarious existence, subjected to all kinds of hardships. This frustration generated a considerable amount of disillusionment with modernist governments and their policies of economic and social development. The persistent insecurity of urban existence over the years resulted in the emergence of various religious movements. The number of mosques in the cities multiplied and, through them, religious influences further permeated social life. This was shaped into a powerful segment and constituency by the religious parties and then nourished and expanded by the Zia dictatorship.
These segments provided considerable support for Zia’s so-called “Islamisation” process. Even though those protesting against Zia’s programmes and laws often managed to embarrass the regime by getting their point of view published in some Western newspapers, most human and civil rights activists and political workers went unheard even in the most liberal and democratic European countries.
This was because of the fact that much of the efforts of the media in these countries and of their governments were focussed on the civil war in Afghanistan. The US and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) largely looked the other way when the Zia regime was using religion to commit open human rights violations and intense political repression. The most the West was willing to offer at the time was political asylum to those thrown out or volunteering to move out of Pakistan because of the oppressive atmosphere here. For the US and its European allies, Zia was too important an asset to upset in their Cold War against “Soviet expansionism.”
These are some of the prominent factors behind the dictatorship’s success in unleashing laws and Ordinances which, today, would be almost impossible to enact without being vehemently challenged within and outside the country. However, attempts to retain and re-ignite them are still very much part of Pakistan’s political playbook even today.
(Courtesy: Dawn)
Afghan peace depends on Taliban’s acceptability
by Makhan Saikia / 26 September 2020Even before the peace talks began, the Taliban have been working hard to project themselves as a pan-Afghan identity. However, this expedient tactic is unlikely to offer sizeable dividends to them as their brutality and antipathy towards the Afghan minorities have been entrenched in the memory of the persecuted. Nevertheless, if they come to power, India should accept them as a legitimate Afghan Government
The intra-Afghan dialogue going on in Qatar is a concerted effort to chart a new course of peace and tranquility in Afghanistan, torn apart by decades of occupation and civil war.
As the Taliban have been waging war to regain power by brutal means, it is important in this situation to look at the critical roles played by Pakistan and America in this long-- drawn Afghan quagmire.
Interestingly, Pakistan a country that was reprimanded by US President Donald Trump in 2018 for its “lies and deceit” joined as the third key player in the historic US-Taliban peace talks. This has even despite Washington cutting security assistance to Islamabad.
Since the signing of the peace deal in February 2020 amid the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, Pakistan’s fortune has started changing. Some strategic experts say the Imran Khan Government is trying to shed its image of a state associated with terror and terror financing. Pakistan has been criticised by world leaders for not uprooting anti-India terror forces on its soil.
As Pakistan has involved itself in the Afghan peace talks, it is vital for New Delhi to approach the Afghan dilemma afresh. Taliban is now in a position of strength. New Delhi, Islamabad and Washington need to tackle the monster very cautiously. For the Ghani regime, the durability of peace depends on limiting Taliban’s influence in small pockets. Allowing the Taliban to regroup for seeking a role larger than its usual strength would herald full-scale disaster to Kabul.
Further, the arrival of the Taliban cadre to the heart of Afghan politics once again might jeopardise the democratic institution building taken up by the previous Karzai regime and the current establishment in the country.
Is there any hope that there would be lasting peace in Afghanistan? It seems unlikely. Resting on the most unpredictable Taliban might be another misstep in the lexicon of peace building in Afghanistan. However, the resilience demonstrated by the group this time is extraordinary. They are working hard to project themselves as a pan-Afghan identity. However, this expedient tactic would not offer sizeable dividends to them as their brutality and antipathy towards the Afghan minorities like the Hazras and Sikhs are entrenched in the memory of the persecuted.
Hence, the enormity of challenges faced by the current Ghani regime is more than a reality. Practically speaking, the US support in the form of aid, advice and supervision must continue. Whether Trump or Biden, whoever comes to Washington in January, without a second thought, America must back any democratic regime that comes to Kabul. Else the hope of building a civil society and grassroot democratic institutions would be completely destroyed.
It is unlikely that Pakistan will learn from its past mistakes of aiding and abetting terrrorism. No one knows how long the Imran Government can survive. As long as the Pakistan Army calls the shots, no democratic leader or regime would have a free hand in political affairs of the country. And for sure, a country like Pakistan can best be safeguarded only by the Army. It’s a notion deeply entrenched in power corridors of the country and among the public.
Its people have rarely had the experience of governed by strong civilian leaders in the history, except one like late Benazir Bhutto. She ruled Pakistan during a tumultuous time. But then till her assassination in 2007, she was always regarded by the country’s military a “security threat” simply because she was working hard to promote peace in South Asia and voicing for a broad-based Government in Afghanistan.
It is fair to say military in Pakistan is an omnipotent institution. Its influence in politics is here to stay. So whatever is convenient to it, accordingly, the future roadmap of Pakistan will be drawn. Afghanistan has always been viewed as a playing ground and a zone of influence by the Pakistani Army. Thus its proxies, rather than Islamabad’s, have a major say in Kabul for years. Whenever this equation does not match, such regimes in Kabul find it too difficult to sustain. Experience says Pakistan never wants a strong Indian presence in Afghanistan. Considering its traditional rivalry with India, Islamabad would not allow Delhi to be in good terms with Kabul. Though India’s continued outreach to Afghanistan has mostly been received positively, the complex power structures in that country has hardly left any role for New Delhi, except as an aid partner.
The root cause for this dilemma is no other than Pakistan, and to some extent the US. Washington knows pretty well that without taking Islamabad into confidence, peace in Afghanistan would not last long.
Currently, the Modi Government is advocating that the talks must be Afghan owned and Afghan led. This is fine. But then, will Delhi be ready to forge a deal with the Taliban if it comes back to power? This must be made clear to the world that Delhi would be forging a new normal with the Taliban if it forms a legitimate Government in Afghanistan. Can anyone think that Taliban will have trust in the democratic process? Will it be ready to contest elections in case it takes place?
What will happen if its candidates are outright rejected by the common people? The Taliban is an experienced player. Its Government from 2001 to 2006 led by Mullah Omar was barely recognised by one or two countries around the world. Afterwards, the Taliban regime tasted defeat from the powerful force led by the US and its allies.
Since then, Afghanistan is virtually under the occupation of NATO forces even though democratically elected Governments have reinforced a new sense of security and peace in the country.
In the last two decades, the way the Taliban has intervened in several pockets of the country has demonstrated how brutal it could be. Its complete disregard for basic rights, particularly of the minorities, children and women, have only brought fear and darkness to the civilians in Afghanistan.
In such circumstances, the only possibility for the Taliban is to charter a new peace course to be acceptable as a Afghan government. It could be a smart power-sharing deal that may make the group a partner in the legitimate Government of the country. Then the question comes, will these radicals be accepted by the democratically elected leaders? Will there be a working relationship among them that could survive for some time? Will these warlords simply accept a rule-based order? It all looks topsy-turvy.
They may not be acceptable by either Ghani or any other popular leaders in the country. Accepting them is simply a big blot on the fragile democratic set-up of the country. Neither would they accept a system that offers an order wherein one needs to be responsible and delivering goods to the people. So the road ahead in Afghanistan is murky.
To conclude, the Taliban is to be handled carefully. It’s good that they are back to a peace table. Pakistan has finally realised that its willingness to back the peace process may mean a lot to the making of peace in its neighborhood. The US role is inseparable from a durable peace process in Afghanistan. Other critical players such as India, China and Russia need to see that they are all engaged in any peace deal that brings stability to a legitimate government in Kabul.
When the Taliban representatives and the delegates of the Ghani Government meet in Doha, they would find it hard to resolve many critical issues. The two parties are showing visions that could hardly meet at any point, particularly in regard to how Afghanistan would be governed in future. Many hardline Taliban commanders demand that Ghani be replaced and an interim government should come to Kabul.
Many of these militants are not ready to work with the Ghani Government. They even view the Ghani Government as not a legitimate representative of the Afghan people. They all have referred Ghani as a puppet. How will they work with such a leader now?
Way back in June, Ghani said during a virtual conference: “I serve at will of the Afghan people, not to the will of the Taliban.” Such conflicting statements from both the Taliban and Ghani might put hurdle in the ongoing intra-Afghan talk. Ghani also said any discussion of an interim government is premature. He is absolutely right as there are many other critical issues to be sorted out with the Taliban. Only, time will tell us, what could unfold for the war-ravaged Afghanistan.
(The writer is an expert on international affairs)
Rescue package
by SC Pandey / 26 September 2020We need a supportive policy regime so that banks can lend more and there is a rigorous monitoring of end-use of credit
It sounds pretty heartless to worry about the economy and livelihoods and appear less concerned with peoples’ lives. It is difficult to weigh in golden balance whether lives or livelihoods are more important.
On December 31, 2019, China first told the World Health Organisation (WHO) that 41 patients in Wuhan had contracted a mysterious pneumonia not amenable to conventional treatment. Beginning January 23, first the city of Wuhan, then the entire Hubei province and then some other cities were locked down. The unprecedented quarantine was imposed on 50 million people across 15 cities.
After a 6.8 per cent contraction in January-March 2020 quarter, China’s economy recorded 3.2 per cent growth in April-June 2020. China is the first major economy to return to growth after the pandemic.
For us, the pandemic is an imported calamity. The main gateways to India have been worst affected. Major democracies, including India, have failed to emulate the ruthless measures taken by China (and could be taken by China alone) to contain the damage. Maybe there is more than what meets the eye here.
With confirmed infections of over 50 lakh, albeit with a somewhat modest case fatality ratio of 1.64 per cent and a significantly high 78 per cent recovery rate, the first peak is not in sight at the national level although there is significant disruption of economic activity. Individual estimates vary widely with observers’ biases as expected because the pandemic has fooled all forecasting tools. A general sense is that we face stagnation if not outright contraction in economic growth in the current year.
The GDP at current market prices was Rs 45.51 lakh crore, Rs 49.18 lakh crore and Rs 38.08 lakh crore during April-June 2018, April-June 2019 and April-June 2020, respectively. The GDP at 2011-12 prices was Rs 26.89 lakh crore during April-June 2020, compared to Rs 35.35 lakh crore during April-June 2019. This is the direct effect of the lockdown that was in force for almost two out of three months in the first quarter. Experts are divided as to how the GDP is going to behave in the ensuing quarters due to the impact of the pandemic on jobs and incomes.
Another way to analyse the economic impact of the pandemic is to look at GST collections which indicate the quantum of documented sales of goods and services. Monthly GST collections during April-August have been Rs 32,172 crore, Rs 62,151 crore, Rs 90,917 crore, Rs 87,422 crore and Rs 86,449 crore. In August 2019, GST collection was Rs 98,202 crore, so, obviously we are far away from reaching pre-lockdown levels of spending and registering a decent growth on that level. The shortfall from August 2019 GST collection is 12 per cent in August 2020. Obviously, GST collections would not measure the impact of the pandemic on the informal economy where undocumented sales take place on kutchha bills.
The first quarter GDP contraction affected almost all sectors. The only sector that posted positive growth (3.4 per cent) was agriculture, with bumper Rabi crops. High-contact sectors like tourism and hospitality are very badly affected.
Past years’ trends show that the GDP is almost equally divided in the four quarters with some increase in the last quarter. In 2017-18, the contribution of the four quarters was 23.4, 24.4, 25.3 and 26.9 per cent for quarters one, two, three and four. In 2018-19, it was 24, 24.5, 25.4 and 26.1 per cent. In 2019-20, it was 24.2, 24.2, 25.4 and 26.2 per cent. This year’s quarterly GDP trends are going to be abnormal.
If the four quarterly GDPs don’t add up to Rs 204 lakh crore, we are going to have negative annual growth. Just to catch up with the 2019-20 GDP of Rs 204 lakh crore, and quarter one is just Rs 38 lakh crore, we need to add Rs 166 lakh crore in the remaining three quarters.
The catch-up target is stiff because we have to offset a big shortfall of Rs 11 lakh crore in quarter one. Something like GDP of Rs 50 lakh crore, Rs 55 lakh crore and Rs 60 lakh crore would be needed in quarter two, three and four just to maintain the 2020-21 GDP at the 2019-20 level sans growth. With train and air services suspended and localised lockdowns, normalcy hasn’t returned.
The pandemic and the lockdown have reminded most well-off people that they can live with fewer wants. The cost-cutting austerity measures by Governments and corporates mean incomes and even jobs are on the chopping block.
In a crisis like this, borrowings are inevitable to move forward. Long ago, popular culture stigmatised lenders and borrowers. An indebted person felt embarrassed and lenders were reviled. But attitudes have changed over the years and “borrow and spend” is an accepted way of life.
Major economies are surviving on people buying things that they don’t really need and living on borrowed funds. It is a paradox that the richest countries are also the most indebted countries. New aspirational needs are felt or created, new technology is developed to fill those needs and finance is arranged by printing money or borrowings. Governments in particular borrow and spend, leaving the burden of debt servicing on future Governments/generations.
The total worldwide debt was close to a record high of $253 trillion (September 2019), a whopping 322 per cent of the world GDP. It was about 100 per cent of the world GDP in 1961. There is also unreported debt.
The US Government has the highest debt of over $ 24 trillion. Among foreign lenders of the US Government, Japan and China top the list. Of course, a fuller picture emerges not just by looking at the size of debt but also on the ability to repay, roll over/re-finance, to print money without backing of gold and to control good quality productive assets. That is how the game has been going on.
In 1961, the nominal GDP of the whole world was 1.4 trillion dollars and the population was 3.09 billion. By 2017, it had grown to 80.9 trillion dollars and the population had increased to 7.55 billion. Per capita income had grown from $3,827 to $10,632. The total debt in emerging and developing economies climbed to a record $55 trillion in 2018, marking an eight-year surge that has been the largest, fastest and most broad-based in nearly five decades.
To offset the pandemic’s human and economic costs, Governments need to spend more. If consumers and Governments stop spending, livelihoods will be lost and there are too many of them at risk. This is no time to fret about Government debt. We are cursed to keep borrowing and spending, particularly during a crisis. It is a fate akin to that of the mythical Sisyphus moving the boulder up the mountain. Stop rolling it up and it will come down crushing. Riding the tiger is another apt analogy.
The present generation is forced to borrow prosperity from future generations. It will be morally right only if we spend borrowed money wisely and leave scope for future generations to be prosperous. To mitigate the economic distress, we need to facilitate banks to lend more. Unlike the situation in 2008-09 during the global financial crisis, we have better macro-economic fundamentals. Bank credit is just 50 per cent of the GDP. We need a supportive policy regime and monitoring of end-use of credit.
(The author is an IAAS officer, superannuated as Special Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry)
Corona paints a bleak picture
by Uma Nair / 25 September 2020Art talks to us like nothing else does. It re-awakens our senses and reminds us of the power of imagination in the face of the death and economic destruction brought about by the pandemic
The pandemic has brought the art world to its knees. The silence is ominous and the webinars and online propaganda are somewhat stifling when you think of how suddenly it is only about talking and voices and voices and talking. Amid the many cancellations of fairs, exhibitions, films, plays, performances and dances globally, we must ask ourselves questions about the value of art and culture at a time when humanity is under great stress. When it is fighting for its very survival as the virus throws up a kind of socio-economic disparity and devastation we have not witnessed in recent times.
At a time when people tell us that there are much more important things to worry about in this world than art, one would beg to differ. Art talks to us like nothing else does. It re-awakens our senses and reminds us of the power of imagination in the face of the death and destruction brought upon us by the pandemic.
The New York Times states that though fairs have been cancelled and galleries have closed, the wealthy are still buying. In India it’s difficult to get true stories of buying and selling from art galleries/dealers/consultants/artists. The physicality of looking at a work and buying is something that needs to be worked upon. An image does not do justice to a work of art. Perhaps private appointments by clients are the way to go in the new pandemic scenario. But there are hectic announcements of online shows and galleries coming together to host prized possessions on the internet and social media. Some galleries are stating that they have a few sales but it’s not as much as they would like in a stagnant market.
In the West, a report of 795 galleries representing 60 different national markets, called The Impact of Covid-19 on the Gallery Sector, written by the cultural economist Clare McAndrew, is the first major survey of how the contagion has hit art dealers globally. Until sales statistics are shared by galleries all over India, it’s difficult to add a percentage of propensity to the real figures. But one scene that has remained buoyant is that of online auctions.
Pundoles looking West: Pundoles Mumbai ruled the roost the past month with its Looking West auction split into two parts, featuring a part of the collection of fish baron Masanari Fukuoka, who decided he wanted Pundoles to handle the sale rather than international houses like Christies, Sotheby’s or even Saffronart. With blue chip names on its avant-garde list, the auction threw up some magnificent numbers. VS Gaitonde, the abstract master, was top draw. His untitled 1967 work set a new record at Rs 32 crore as the selling hammer price. Two sculptures also set their own highs. The first was a “Bull’s Head” (1998) by Tyeb Mehta, who created this sculpture as his tribute to the trussed bull (he used to hear their heart-wrenching cries when he lived next to a slaughterhouse in Mumbai). It sold at a new record of Rs 3.2 crore.
The second sculpture was printmaker and sculptor Somnath Hore’s “Goat” (1988) that sold at Rs 65 lakh, a new high for this venerated master. India’s greatest figurative master Jogen Chowdhury’s “The Couple” (1999) sold for Rs 1.7 crore, setting a new record for the 80-year-old Kolkata artist.
Saffronart’s success: The next auction high was Saffronart’s Evening Sale. The highly-anticipated online live auction — the first since the pandemic —closed at 88 per cent lots sold, achieving a total sale of Rs 66.4 crore amid enthusiastic bidding. The 300th auction in Saffronart’s 20 years, this sale was a unique hybrid experience that allowed bidders from across the globe to participate virtually.
The sale was led by VS Gaitonde’s masterpiece painting of 1974 from the collection of Sabira Merchant, which sold for Rs 35.5 crore, making it the second-highest price achieved for the artist, as well as for a work of Indian art to be sold in an auction worldwide. Among the best works Gaitonde ever produced, this ethereal, luminescent work embodies his preoccupation with Zen Buddhism as well as his associations with the sea.
Among the top highlights of the sale were two exquisite works by modernist NS Bendre, including a figurative work from 1971 which sold for Rs 1.56 crore, more than tripling its pre-sale estimate, and an untitled work (possibly a view of Mandu), 1982, which sold for Rs 1.14 crore. Jehangir Sabavala’s “The Cactus Wave”, 2006, sold for Rs 2.63 crore.
Artists in studios/homes: Across the land in homes, in studios that belong to them as well as others, artists are still pouring out their imagination. Those who have computers and laptops are busy with Zoom webinars and the like but my heart goes out to artists who have no technology. They continue to be inspired in their own small rooms with minimal media and materials. Questions arise as to how they are eking out their living.
The buyer’s market is not so well laid out. Galleries have their own list of collectors and buyers but it is only established artists who can share in that bouquet of well-being. One of the greatest contributions to an artist’s life can be through corporate houses, hotels, Government and private offices and complexes that can use art works and help artists to thrive in a market that has fallen to the Covid climate.
Take for instance Tom Vattakuzhy, a brilliant artist in Kerala who lost out on a historic series of illustrations in the Malayala Manorama because of a misunderstanding with the Church. His works echo his solitude. They make everyone empathise with him and stir their inner recesses. Vattakuzhy, a Masters from Shantiniketan and then Vadodara, is a prime example of a brilliant artist waiting to be shown by a curator, gallery or promoter who will not throw him to the sharks. Let’s face it, the art world thrives on profit margins and cut-throat competition. India needs more institutions and philanthropic agencies to help artists all over the country.
Institutions like the Lalit Kala Akademi have a great role to play in opening their spaces to as many solo shows as possible to lift the darkness in the world of the lonely artist waiting in the wings. The India International Centre and AIFACS do yeoman’s service for the arts. Big artists, too, need to get out of their cocoons and help others in need.
Black Lives Matter: The most beautiful example of an artist helping others has been that of the great artist Bansky. The British street artist financed a boat to rescue refugees attempting to reach Europe from north Africa. The vessel, named Louise Michel after a French feminist anarchist, set off in secrecy on August 18 from the Spanish port of Burriana, near Valencia, and was in the central Mediterranean Sea, where on August 30 it rescued 89 people, including 14 women and four children.
It was looking for a safe port to disembark the passengers or to transfer them to a European coast guard vessel. Since setting off from Burriana, the boat, registered in Germany and manned by a crew of activists from across Europe led by Pia Klemp, rescued more than 150 people off the coast of Libya. The majority of the passengers were transferred to a larger rescue vessel a few days ago, after European authorities appeared to ignore Mayday calls from the Louise Michel, which had become too overloaded to steer. The survivors finally arrived in the port of Palermo, Sicily.
Underscoring the hypocrisy of governments shouting out for racial equality while simultaneously taking a hardline anti-immigration stance, Banksy’s video of the rescue mission, posted on Instagram, concluded with the words: “All Black Lives Matter.” Perhaps in a blanket equation of everyone in the world, we could tweak it to say “All Lives Matter.” Maybe the virtual world is here to stay until the virus is tackled with a vaccine that says: “Get thee behind me.”
(The writer is a senior art critic and independent curator)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month