While Democratic challenger Biden is picking up in the polls, ruling out Trump is a mistake that few should make

When Donald Trump won the 2016 US  presidential poll, he didn’t just shake up the American polity but visibly the entire world. As political commentators in India and elsewhere tried to figure out the nuances of the US’ bizarre electoral college system and how the winner of the popular vote actually lost an election, the world prepared for Trump. It has been a roller coaster ride since January 2017 when Trump took office. From his market-moving Twitter tirades to the many self-aggrandising press briefings, Trump has said a lot of things to a lot of people.

But as the US heads into the next presidential election cycle later this year, can Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden, who was also former President Barack Obama’s Vice President, defeat Trump? Biden has maintained low profile during the Coronavirus pandemic. Even during the racial protests that engulfed certain American cities, he maintained studied silence, possibly in order to avoid his legendary gaffes. This is in sharp contrast to Trump’s bombastic statements. By all accounts, Biden is leading Trump in the polls across several important American “battleground” States where the 2020 election will be won and lost. The average of national surveys has put Biden up over Trump. However, this discounts the latter’s extremely good ground game; last time his team knew they had an upper hand even before the election. This is why they allowed the mainstream media to portray him as weak, which doubled the surprise of his victory. It has been 28 years since an incumbent US President lost re-election. Putting Trump on the backfoot might actually spur him to revitalise his base. The riots now, with their senseless and wanton destruction, will actually play into Trump’s core support base of White voters. Trump likes playing the insurgent card when it comes to electioneering. And with the media and analysts sitting in their ivory towers in America’s coastal cities, they forget how electorally important this base is. For Biden to ensure victory, he will have to reach out to Trump’s core voter base. While he has the polling lead for now, he has not started that outreach. Keep in mind that as the first votes were counted on that fateful November night in 2016, Hillary Clinton had a 96 per cent chance of being the US’ 45th President.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

It is unfortunate that for certain democracies, the military willy-nilly becomes an inadvertent piece of the political legitimisation framework and is milked for partisan purposes

Democracies across the globe have seen the sudden rise of the far-Right and the neo-nationalists, who posture muscular stances in a bid to undo the “weaknesses” of the past. From Washington, DC, to Rio de Janeiro, to Budapest, Ankara and Manila, the template is the same: Supposed “strongmen” recklessly pander to the basest instincts. The common playbook for the leadership entails “majoritarianism”, “illiberality” and “discomfort” with constitutional restraints. Profundity of patriotism is replaced by supremacy of unbridled nationalism. The tone and tenor accompanying such leadership is decidedly “unapologetic” and “aggressive.” Another commonality in such nationalistic fervour and rhetoric is the dangerous appropriation of the apolitical military to buttress the political credentials of the “strongman.” Herein, the leadership seeks to dovetail, champion and posit the military as its natural supporter and ambassador. This affords it political legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry to do many more dangerous unconstitutional acts. The military willy-nilly becomes a partisan accompaniment, a tool and an inadvertent piece of the political legitimisation framework.

Ironically, these adopters of militaristic symbolism are usually not from military background or sensibilities. Take the example of Presidents Donald Trump, Rodrigo Duterte, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Their formula of nationalism entails interventionist, revisionist and authoritarian agenda that necessitate the subliminal endorsement and usurpation of the military imagery. In all such democracies, these tendencies unsettle the traditional rectitude of the armed forces, which unequivocally disdains topical politics, societal divides and reckless liberties. The required “distance” between the political leadership and the relatively-independent and professional domain of the military gets compromised. The military then stands to assume a partisan slant and preference. Under the garb of “recognising” the military, condescending platitudes are routinely dished with no material benefit for it. The institution is only milked to serve partisan purposes. Given its regimented and disciplined ethos of not speaking up to the national leadership — even when related to personal and career considerations — often, the senior leadership in the military does not do enough to stop the politicisation of this institution. Thus, the armed forces risk compromising their constitutional commitments.

Trump has displayed child-like glee for militaristic trappings such as parades, weaponry, language and self-claimed obsession with “quick action,” ignoring the fact that behind the powerful symbols of the institution resides the purest, noblest and the most constitutionally adherent spirit in action. Combat units do not encourage “divides” as the US military is disproportionately populated by minorities like the Hispanics and African-Americans. This political polarisation would prove to be a natural anathema to the institution. But fragility in the military-political relationship in the US started brewing after most veterans voted in favour of Trump when he seduced them with his uber-nationalistic bluster and bravado. But the military was getting increasingly restless with the interferences; with the hallowed chain and command passing  the buck to the “Generals” on operational failures; and with the institution being dragged into the theatrical politics of Trump.

One defining moment of this tenuous military-civil equation in the US came forth when the President strolled down to a nearby church, accompanied by a posse of his team, and dramatically held aloft a Bible. The photo-op caught the Washington police by surprise as they had to crudely and forcibly push away the peaceful demonstrators. The Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington was “outraged” at the use of the church as a political stage. Even worse was the sight of the senior most US military General Mark A Milley in combat fatigues, forming the backdrop of that overtly dramatised “moment” and he being used as a willing prop.

Yet again, willingly or unwillingly, Trump had drawn the avowedly apolitical institution into extremely politically-loaded “moment.” The optics also inadvertently signalled the institution’s alignment on the way security was being handled and worse, it sought to be further handled by invoking the military. What followed next was an unequivocal and bipartisan roast of the apparent conduct of the top General. The military’s cherished political abstention was visibly compromised — all eyes turned on Gen Milley but not much was expected as Trump has routinely interfered, fired and bulldozed opposition.

But Gen Milley demonstrated the highest levels of military courage, uprightness and morality when he apologised for the optics, knowingly earned  presidential ire and risked getting fired. Milley unambiguously said, “I should not have been there” and that “my presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.” In one sweep, Milley restored the larger dignity of the regrettable situation, the institution and the nation. Gen Milley’s apology does not show him in  weak light. On the contrary, both he and the institution have been strengthened by reiterating the supremacy of the US Constitution as opposed to the vanity and whims of any individual — even if he happens to be the Commander-in-Chief. Gen Milley salvaged the situation from getting dangerously and irreparably undermined. This is especially applicable for the military, which holds the coercive instruments of sovereign power. Gen Miley’s extraordinary public apology also included a very telling and direct comment when he told his troops to “defend the Constitution” — the distinction between the President and the Constitution was unmistakable.

Gen Milley may join the revolving door of the White House administration that has seen the fired backs of some of the most decorated, valourised and respected veterans. Ironically, veteran affairs and the military were signature Trump issues in his politics but the treatment meted out to the institution, its traditions and values will make the most Republican Party supporting veterans think twice. The humility in Mark Milley’s words, “As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I have learned from, and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it” is both rare and thoroughly inspirational.

(Writer: Bhopinder Singh; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

In a world where our fates are inextricably tied, it is difficult to imagine a future based on the erasure of the past, however traumatic or unjust it might be

There is nothing new about the US race riots. After nearly three centuries of slave trade, hundred years of racial violence, decades of racial tension, numerous incidents of unrestrained police behaviour towards the African Americans, routine protests and occasional riots, the recent images emerging from the US attest to a social realism that the world is all too familiar with. With the protests growing in spread, strength and vehemence, the demonstrators have started targetting Confederate landmarks and pulling down statues of slave traders. There have also been calls to rechristen army bases named after Confederate commanders; a move which US President Donald Trump has vowed to oppose in order to protect American heritage and the history of military triumphs. Taking a cue from the US, anti-racism campaigners in England, too, have set out on a defacing spree, unleashing their ire on statues of Winston Churchill, Queen Victoria and even Gandhi. However, when we attempt to reset the clock by “killing” the dead and decapitate statues, we often fail to build something of value in its stead.

In the BBC documentary, Tearing up History: The Art of Revolution,  which deals with the large-scale destruction of art and architecture during the French revolution, art historian David Clay argues that such acts of vandalism are well nigh as powerful as acts of creation. Accounts of 1792 capture the zeal with which the revolutionaries went about demolishing statues, memorials and palaces — all symbols of the ancient regime. So copious was the revolutionary zeal to de-Christianise and rationalise France that the seemingly innocuous ways of registering time were also altered. Names of days and months were changed on the calendar and days commemorating saints were removed. Sylvain Marechal, a notorious atheist, poet and political theorist, went as far as secularising the connotation of December 25 from the birth of Lord Jesus to that of Isaac Newton.

In spite of the reign of terror, the monarchical ambition of Napoleon in his later years and the sheer fact that within a space of 22 years the deposed Bourbon dynasty was restored, French experiments with radical social reengineering did yield a few results. However, bulldozing art or attempts at reordering time according to revolutionary ethics have only left behind a bitter legacy of confusion and pain.

The past never really evaporates and continues to inform our present. The erasure of the past, however bitter, cannot be the basis of a lasting future. We know this because Nelson Mandela carved a rainbow nation in post-apartheid South Africa through reconciliation and Germany decided against dismantling the Nazi concentration camps, lest the coming generations of Germans forget the crimes their ancestors had committed.

This is not to suggest that busts of slave traders should adorn public squares in the US or wherever coloured races have suffered. But how much of the world can be really built anew? Statues, institutions and edifices of what antiquity or which period can be safely removed?

In the context of India, much like any other country of the world, these questions precipitate a set of irredeemably baffling answers. There are so many overlaps between pre-and post-Independence India and there is so much that we have borrowed from our colonial exploiters. Our Constitution draws generously from the Government of India Act, 1935, our Parliament is modelled on the British Westminster style and the best of our universities were established during  colonial times. Must we shut our hallowed temples just because of their colonial past? Should we destroy the busts and the forts of India’s erstwhile royals because of the caste and economic discrimination they represent and because democracy by its definition is antithetical to feudalism? Or should we prohibit the sons and daughters of former royal families from holding public offices because some of them continue to thrive on account of those identities and in those palaces?

Surely, their heritage notwithstanding, no Indian would ever contemplate dismantling the aforementioned institutions which have served our democracy so faithfully. Surely we cannot overlook the monumental contributions of the Maharajas of Darbhanga, Travancore and Bikaner, to name just a few, who have done so much to modernise India. If we start retracing our steps to arrive at the origin of a crisis, located at some point in the remote past, we would find ourselves stranded in the middle of Darwin’s archipelago. Hardening of administrative positions, calling the protestors “thugs” or making propositions like “no justice, no peace” lend themselves to the archaic Aristotelian logic of the “excluded middle” — a premise which leaves no room for negotiation or a middle ground — planks that we need for lasting truce. Besides, such a position blurs those distinctions that exist between the real oppressors and ideological adversaries. If we allow ourselves to be blinded by rage, however fair it might be, we often tend to misjudge and even Gandhi becomes a racist class enemy.

It is true that melting pots like the US leave much to be desired. Equally valid is the contention that transfer of power, such as the one that took place in India, is at best incomplete. In a country like the US and for that matter in most European nations, the process of integration is far from perfect. If we keep throwing the moments of “first contact” or the unfortunate reality of colonialism into relief, we are bound to regress several steps away from a possible resolution. Mrinal Sen’s film Interview offers an interesting take on this dilemma. The film opens with a newsreel showing the removal of colonial statues from Maidan, Kolkata’s largest public park. However, attempts to sanitise the city of its colonial vestiges contrast ironically with the fate of the protagonist. Ranjit fails to get a lucrative job with a multinational company because he fails to show up for the interview dressed in immaculate Western attire.

In a world where our fates are inextricably tied, it is difficult to imagine a future based on the erasure of the past, however traumatic or unjust it might be. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine RK Narayan’s fictional Malgudi, which has over the decades become a universal metaphor for the “real” India, without the statue of that unknown British general that stands proudly in its bustling market.

(Writer: Gautam Choubey; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Autocracy, whether Russian, Soviet or Chinese, acts as a perpetual inebriant and keeps the rulers out of contact with their people. This disconnect is an eternal fault of dictatorship

Paradoxically, Chinese President Xi Jinping appears to have been inspired by the old imperial tradition that “everything under the heavens belongs to the emperor.” He has got himself elected as the emperor by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. Like him, Joseph Stalin, a Russian dictator (1924-53), dreamt super dreams. Before World War II, Russia was a normal European power. There was no superpower in Europe. It was the American influence on the continent during and after the war that gave rise to this new geopolitical concept. Moreover, many Russians believed that they had primarily won the war because they reached Berlin first; perhaps so did Stalin. Thereafter, presumptuously, Moscow postured as a superpower equal to the US. America had the atom bomb and, therefore, the Soviet Union had to have one, no matter the cost. By 1952, the Pentagon had exploded a thermonuclear device. Stalin was impatient and regardless of the cost proportionate to the Soviet economy, a thermonuclear bomb was ready in 1953. That was not really beating the US and, hence, the Sputnik, the world’s first artificial earth satellite, was floated in October 1957. Here, the US appeared overtaken in the space race.

Stalin died in 1953 but his spirit of superpowerdom, no matter the cost, carried on, to the extent that the First Secretary, Nikita Khrushchev, thumped his shoe on the table at the United Nations (UN). He also told the US, implicitly the entire capitalist world, that “we shall bury you.” No matter who the First Secretary or the Prime Minister was, the intoxication carried on merrily until Mikhail Gorbachev became the First Secretary. He immediately knew that his country was well past bankruptcy and called for Perestroika (reconstruction) and Glasnost (openness). But hardly could anyone realise that it was former US President Ronald Reagan and his programme of “Star Wars” that finished the Soviet economy. It was a competition in escalation of arms that the Soviets could not afford and fell by the wayside. To try and revive it, India’s then Prime Minister, PV Narasimha Rao, doled out $1 billion to Moscow when Boris Yeltsin was the President. Meanwhile, the 16 Soviet Republics that made up the Union broke up.

Had Joseph Stalin continued to believe that he was a “European” and not “superian”, would such an eventuality have come to pass? The empire the Tsars had so assiduously built over two centuries crashed in 1990-91. Uncannily, it took at least three decades until after the World War II before the US devised a clear-cut, simple strategy to defeat the Soviet Union. That began when former President Ronald Reagan came to power in 1981 and soon condemned the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” and decided on an arms race to test how far the Soviets could sustain such a race. They could not build anything similar to what the Americans had envisaged ie, platforms in the skies to fire lasers at and destroy incoming ballistic missiles. The Soviet rulers could apparently not understand what was going on. All they knew was that they were short of every kind of necessity, food, consumer goods and industrial manufacturing of sophistication. Yet, they did not cut down on their military budget. In fact, former President Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev of the USSR reiterated his predecessors’ policy by stating that his country would “match the Star Wars build-up of the US.” Evidently, he was oblivious of the economic situation his country was in. There was no comparison between the economic strengths of the two powers and the inevitable crash of the USSR happened.

Nevertheless, it was also Gorbachev, the last of the Soviet Union’s First Secretaries, who was the first one to see the rot within his country’s system. He embarked on Perestroika, which meant reconstruction. Well-wishers of Russia would have wished that he had stopped at Perestroika and not coupled his reform programme with Glasnost or openness or democracy. These two reforms together led to chaos rather than any improvement.

The contrast was seen in China under Deng Xiaoping, wherein he confined his country’s reforms to Perestroika. Of course, Deng’s words were: “The colour of the cat does not matter so long as it catches mice.” To this day, over 30 years later, there is no real Glasnost in China. There has been Perestroika all the way but no freedom or democracy. Those classes, who have enriched China and themselves through these reforms, obviously feel powerful. The question is: Will they remain subservient in a communist regime or seek a democratic vote before long?

Communist China has pursued the same autocratic path as has been its tradition for the last 22 centuries as was the Russian from time immemorial. The Soviet regime was called a “dictatorship of the people.” Before 1917, it was the imperial rule of the Tsars. The modern rulers probably presumed that the old blood runs in the veins of the modern youth, whether rich or poor. In reality, the soil is ideal for dictatorship so long as the society is feudal. The time the Soviet Union turned an industrial autocracy, inefficiencies began to show up. The Soviet rulers did not have the vision to detect this decline. World War-II, under the love of mother Russia to an extent, enthused the workers and concealed the deficiencies. In this context, the worst enemy is the absence of democracy. Rulers do not obtain any feedback from their people. Those, who provide such feedback, do so through the screen of terror.

The other factor is that autocracy, whether Russian, Soviet or Chinese, acts as a perpetual inebriant and keeps the rulers out of contact with their people. In the bargain, they should have plenty of time to think about governance; although they miss out on what their people want. This disconnect is an eternal fault of dictatorship. The commissars have suffered from it; the Chinese less so and the Russians more. Perhaps they have learnt a lesson from the Soviets.

Another fault of autocracy is the immediate feeling of power in the ruler. The wiser person restrains himself. While retiring, Deng had advised his successors to “hide their strength and bide their time.” Three of his successors namely, Zhao Ziyang, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao followed this advice. They took care not to annoy the US. China traded prolifically with the West and deposited dollars with Washington. All was hunky dory.

President Xi Jinping, however, is given to ambition and has had himself declared emperor and, thus, made it clear that he is recalling the entire past imperial era of his country. The Chinese call themselves the “Middle Kingdom” and their emperor has represented the heavens on earth. Earlier American Presidents, confident in their country’s supremacy, did not take much notice of all this. However, US President Donald Trump is a businessman by vocation and recently, the world has been ravaged by the COVID-19 virus that began from the city of Wuhan in China. Business is an exchange of goods or services for money and not for anything else, including diplomacy or flattery. But recently, China veered from the path of business to that of overt power. In the process, it has very few friends other than North Korea and Pakistan.

This may not be the fault of the communist ideology because history has seen any number of dictators drunk with power and embarking upon disproportionate campaigns, leading their countries to ruin.

(Writer: Prafull Goradia; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

The four-day week is an idea whose time may have come but it is not a magic bullet. Companies don’t hire more people just to spread the work around

As countries in Europe and North America emerge from the lockdown and try to rebuild devastated economies, the great concern is of jobs. Unemployment in the US and Canada is over 13 per cent, a post World War-II high. If it weren’t for subsidies that keep up to a fifth of the working population in paid “furloughs” from their jobs, jobless rates in Europe would be as high or higher. That can’t go on forever, so there is a frantic search for job-saving strategies — and the “four-day work week” keeps coming up.

Like that other proposed magic bullet, the guaranteed basic income, the notion of a four-day working week has been kicking around for a long time. The current emergency has given both ideas a second wind and neither is nearly as radical or extreme as it sounds. Less than a century ago, the whole industrialised world transitioned from the traditional six-day working week (Saturdays included) to a five-day work week for the same pay, with no political upheaval and no significant loss of production. So why don’t we do that again? Spread the work around and save a lot of jobs?

Because it doesn’t work like that. The four-day week is not about spreading the load. It is about finding ways for people, who already have jobs, to squeeze the same work into four 10-hour working days instead of five eight-hour days or to work “smarter” so that they can get the same work done (or more) in only four eight-hour days. The 40-hour week done in four days is the only available option for most process workers on assembly lines or other repetitive physical tasks.  Ten-hour workdays are even harder than they sound but the prize is a three-day weekend and some people are willing to pay the price.

If everybody buys into that, then the management can shut the plant down one extra day and save on power. If only some do, then the management has the headache of scheduling some 10-hour shifts and other eight-hour shifts, plus the cost of the mistakes that may accumulate when exhausted people are approaching the end of a 10-hour shift. And no saving on electricity costs. Nevertheless, it does make for a happier workforce by all accounts and maybe, therefore, a more efficient and productive one. There are already a few examples of this kind of four-day working in every industrial country and now the Prime Ministers of  Finland and New Zealand are both talking it up. Neither woman, however, is proposing to impose it nationally and nobody is suggesting that it will create more jobs.

The four-day week is an easier and more attractive package for people in administrative and sales jobs because everybody knows that there is a lot of wasted time in office work: Social media, pointless emails, long boring meetings and so on. You could get the job done a lot quicker if everybody was motivated to concentrate on the bits that are actually useful and skip the rest. So motivate them. Tell them that they can drop to four eight-hour days a week for the same pay as the old five days if they can still get the same work done — and leave it to them to figure out how. If they can’t, then it’s back to the same old five-day grind. Miraculously, they almost always do manage to find the time. In many cases, indeed, productivity actually rises: Happy workers do better work. The four-day week is an excellent idea whose time may finally have come but it is not a magic bullet. Companies don’t ever hire more people just to spread the work around.

So what might spread the available work around? The US Congress had a brilliant idea in 1938 when it passed the Fair Labour Standards Act, which required employers to pay overtime at 150 per cent of the normal hourly wage for anything over 40 hours of work a week. The idea was to make employers hire more people. If they had 40 employees working 50 hours a week, they would have to pay each of them overtime for the last 10 hours. So why not just hire another 10 people and save all that overtime pay? It worked quite well at the time but it would not work now. Don’t hire more people; just put in more automation.

The Coronavirus is just an accelerator. The real problem with employment ever since the 1990s has been automation, which has been eating up good jobs and excreting low-paid, insecure ones instead — or none at all. Six million good manufacturing jobs were automated out of existence in the US in 2000-2010, which led fairly directly to the election of Donald Trump as the US President in 2016. The current pandemic is speeding the process by driving more jobs online, especially in sales (a different kind of automation), and fiddling with working hours or minimum wages is not going to stop it. So what’s left? Maybe a guaranteed basic income would help but that is a discussion for another day.

(Writer: Gwynne Dyer; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Colonel and two soldiers killed in Ladakh assault amid talks; India must scale up diplomacy now and avoid another front

It is not just the violent face-off between Indian and Chinese troops at Ladakh, the first since 1975 and one where both sides lost troops, that is worrisome but the gruesome nature of it and the relentless baiting and provocation by our eastern neighbour. Apparently, no firearms were shot during the fight on the Indian side as the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) used stones and batons to literally bludgeon each other, an indication of the ferocity of the aggressor. An Indian colonel and two soldiers were killed while the Chinese reportedly lost five of their own during a massive escalation at Galwan Valley. And coming as it does when official level efforts are on to simmer down tension in the middle of a pandemic that has not spared either nation, it clearly shows some kind of extreme desperation on the Chinese side than just browbeating India in the neighbourhood. It clearly wants its way and some territory that is not happening through the talks. Enough to stage a limited incursion at the cost of its own men and resources. For more than six weeks, soldiers from both sides have been engaged in eyeball-to-eyeball manoeuvres at two places along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the 3,488 km de facto boundary between India and China. The confrontation took place at Galwan river, which was one of the early triggers of the 1962 India-China war, and at the Pangong Tso, parts of which have been claimed by both. But these are quite distant from the LAC and have barely caused any flare-ups except at the diplomatic levels. So this is undoubtedly extreme provocation. Yes, China has been uncomfortable about the way India has gone about neutralising its strategic edge in the region ever since the trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir, conversion of Ladakh into a Union Territory and strengthening border roads that can help us replenish troop supplies and movement like never before. But considering the PLA reports directly to the Communist Party of China (CPC) headed by President Xi Jinping, one wonders whether this muscle-flexing is about convincing a home audience on its capability to protect them from an increasingly hostile world. Post Wuhan, and now with a new uncontrollable virus surge in Beijing, Xi has been under immense pressure for his handling of the crisis. The West, tired of the ceaseless lies about the contagion, is pulling out its investment and offices out of China as millions of young people are jobless with millions more waiting in the wings as graduates. The Chinese leadership is finding out ways and means of engaging a relatively qualified generation, lest it becomes frustrated and takes to the streets. For years, it has promised a better life in exchange for a lack of political freedom and now that currency isn’t holding. Besides, the world is no longer in awe of the Chinese market and though dependent on sourcing, is planning rearguard action to stop this over the next decade. At the same time, heaving down on a beleaguered India, whose economy is plunging to unknown depths, yet which has the West’s favour now for future business, would seem like an easy ploy to divert attention and make an example of. Besides, India has quite a bit of Chinese investment to be overtly militarist, and ironically Great Wall Motors inked a massive deal with the Maharashtra Government despite the attack. But India is no more a soft target though Xi seems to be repeating Doklam to appear invincible before the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Process (CPCC) begins. Doklam, too, had happened before such a session. India should scale up diplomatic intervention to restore status quo ante and publicise this effort globally, knowing full well that both nations cannot afford another front during the pandemic war.

Will that tame Chinese exasperation? With the Modi Government committing itself to improving connectivity by 2022, about 66 key roads will be skirting the Chinese border. One of these roads is near the Galwan valley that connects to Daulat Beg Oldi air base. This is what has been upsetting the PLA, which realising its edge in the region is gradually being blunted, is wary of Indian ambitions in the Aksai Chin. At the same time, if China rakes up the long Himalayan boundaries to rein us in, we should also pose a counter-weight by tying up with Southeast Asian nations and build a pressure against Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea. India should discuss shared threats in the Indian Ocean region with Vietnam, Philippines, Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia. Diplomatically, we could circle China by galvanising the threat perception from it in the region and building a security alliance. India can do this without appearing too aggressive or going beyond the rulebook. In fact, we must be prepared for more Chinese hostilities as we build self-sufficiencies. India has stalled it from ambushing our economy by amending its foreign direct investment (FDI) rules to mandate Government approval for all investments from “border” countries. We cannot ignore its manufacturing heft for now but China will not sit easy either with the discomfort over 5G trials and a future shrinkage of its market in India.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Present-day China does not seem to fully endorse its past patterns and those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it

In international politics, one has to be watchful about learning lessons from history. Else, in the words of Winston Churchill, “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.” This applies to China more than ever as it is responding to global criticism over the pandemic with aggressive posturing; by precipitating a deeper crisis in Hong Kong and a stand-off with India at the border. The same logic applies to contemporary global politics amid the outbreak and its reshaping discourses in a post-Covid world, as many experts are putting it.

Across the globe, mistrust among allies is high, cooperation remains non-existent and many countries seem inclined to go their own nationalist way. While the nature of the pandemic is certainly global, the fight against the crisis is being fought on several loosely-tied and fragmented unilateral fronts.

I gather this argument from some classical readings into the “practices and policies” pursued by the supreme Chinese leadership in the past, led by Chairman Mao. This is well explained in The China Questions. Basically, in 1912, a young Mao was gifted a book by his teacher that became the “guiding thought” for his life and politics. From the Long March in 1934 to his guerrilla war days in Yanan, Mao kept the book by his side and frequently referred to the same during his conversations with party officials.

The book titled, Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance, was published in 1084 and was edited by Sima Guang. He was a Chinese historian, intellectual and politician in the Northern Song dynasty. The book was an insightful account of Chinese history and lessons on governance from great Chinese emperors. Mao’s obsession with the book was primarily cultivated by the core challenge, which many rulers face in history: How to stay in power?

Contemporary China is very different from the ancient one. It is no more a traditional agrarian, social economy and is a well-developed modern State with “high economic prowess” backed by big urban centres, high production and manufacturing bases, rapid connectivity and a growing knowledge economy. The China Model by Daniel Bell captures this economic transformation in the last four decades. Once a “secluded empire”, China is now the world’s largest exporter and second-largest destination for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Given the context, the book that Mao cherished holds some key lessons for the present ruling establishment in China. The first lesson is that no dynasty can rule forever. The once-powerful Tang regime in China (618-987) had to come to an end after 289 years. Nevertheless, while the “right to be ruled” simply rests with Chinese citizens, history does hold some lessons for them on the subject. The erosion of the long-practiced system of “collective leadership” and “power consolidation” in present-day China, does face harder times to come.

The second lesson states that elite rebellion is the most important cause of the dynastic fall. The political elite has both the knowledge and resources to challenge the system. In the name of promoting the “rule of law”, since 2012 the Communist Party of China (CPC)  leadership has been running an “anti-graft campaign” targetting high-level party and military officials, some business and State-owned enterprises (SOEs) heads on account of corruption.

The campaign has found over 1.5 million Government officials guilty of a variety of corruption-related charges, also drawing political benefit for the presidency but dissuading a large section of political elite in China.

The third lesson holds the view that emperors who designate loyal and competent successors are likely to be successful. In Indian history, too, many conflicts arose as incumbent rulers failed to address the question of succession. In the present situation, it remains unclear who will succeed in the current presidency in China. Most certainly, the way they handle this subject shall be a “positive indicator” regarding the future political landscape of China.

The pandemic, the ongoing US-China trade war and the playing up of “hegemonic politics” around the crisis is weakening the foundations of global humanitarian relief works and the role of key international agencies. At the time, when the idea of “developmental partnership” as pushed forward by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in relation to China was gathering acceptance and the “Wuhan Spirit” was positively reshaping bilateral discourse, the present stand-off on the border and frequent cases of Chinese incursions across the Line of Actual Control are severely affecting mutual ties between both the countries.

By unapologetically absolving itself from the responsibility of the outbreak and increasing the military build-up across the Indian border and the South China Sea, China seems to be shifting to “more assertive politics.” This not only limits the Chinese “soft power” appeal and its gains from sustained economic growth but proves to be a “judgment in a hurry” by the Chinese leadership which is failing to learn lessons from its own past and is drawing global attention on bleak diplomatic moves.

From AB Vajpayee’s visit to China in 1979 to the Chennai informal summit in 2019 under Modi, the series of Chinese endeavours at the border does nothing except “raise the trust deficit” in India-China relations.

(Writer: Abhishek Pratap Singh; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

The US President might pander to his base but his illogical order on immigration will harm his country

It has not been a great couple of weeks for US President Donald Trump. As the “Black Lives Matter” protests have gathered steam following the brutal murder of a Black man, George Floyd, by a White  Minneapolis police officer, Trump has been floundering, incapable of leading the reconciliation his nation desperately needs. Indeed, he has been pressing all the buttons that will lead to greater factionalism, possibly worsening the crisis. As he remains at odds with the US Congress as well, he has taken to ruling by executive fiat. While his options might be limited, he can take action on immigration. Trump’s crackdown on the US’ southern border with Mexico has led to much human tragedy as well as a realisation that hundreds of those trying to sneak into the country from Mexico are from India. But now he wants to act against letting legitimate visa holders, particularly those on H-1B work visas, into the US in order to protect, preserve and even benefit American jobs. Particularly since millions of Americans have found themselves unemployed as the pandemic ripped through their economy. The COVID-19 outbreak and the economic downturn it engendered have swelled the ranks of unemployed Americans by more than 14 million, from 6.2 million in February to 20.5 million in May 2020. Trump has been a vocal critic of the H-1B programme. He had once vowed to “end forever the use of the H-1B as a cheap labour programme” and make it “an absolute requirement to hire American workers first for every visa and immigration programme” without any exception. But during the first three years of his presidency, the US economy created more than 6.5 million jobs. This weakened the argument that H-1B workers are depriving US citizens of livelihood. But now with the pandemic, as more than 33 million jobs have been lost, voices against H-1B are being raised more than ever. Recent data released by the United States Citizens Immigration Services revealed that the denial rate of this visa has soared since Trump took office.

The H-1B visa issue is particularly an emotive one in India. Thousands of Indian Information Technology (IT) professionals have used it as a lifeboat to migrate to the US and create a better life for their families. With more than half a million H-1B workers in the US, India is one among the main beneficiaries of these temporary work visas. According to reports, India is the only country that takes 70 per cent of the 85,000 H-1B visas applied annually. Not surprising then that IT firms such as Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro and Infosys have become behemoths. But with employment visas being suspended, these firms will be forced to increase local hiring. This would, in turn, eat into their margins. While Trump’s administration has cracked down on these companies using the H-1B route since 2017, it is still used by large American tech firms such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Apple to bring in the best and brightest of Indian talent to the US. And in the case of the latter, it is clear that they are not just bringing in “cheaper” talent but the “best” one. This is where Trump’s order might end up impacting American technology firms badly. The reason why those large corporations have not been hiring “Americans” is quite clear, they do not feel that America has enough talent to be hired. By restricting the entry of H-1B and other technical and work visa holders into the US, Trump might end up damaging American interests rather than helping them. As economies across the world remain in critical mode, thanks to the Corona pandemic, the US would need more such talent for its economy to rebound.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Is it fair to look at historical events with a contemporary lens? Should we change the way we judge their characters?

How should we remember Winston Churchill? A man whose determination and grit saved Britain during its “darkest hour” in 1940. A cigar-chomping, Scotch-swilling, half-American former journalist, who is considered by many Britons as the greatest Briton ever, greater than Shakespeare, Newton and Darwin. Or was he a young rapscallion, a product of aristocracy, who leveraged it to acquire ultimate power despite missteps that would have sunk another career? Or was he an enabler of genocide, a horseman of the apocalypse, whose acts of omission and commission directly led to the death of millions in united Bengal and Odisha through famine and pestilence, a worthy successor to the plunderer of Bengal, Robert Clive? The problem is unfortunately that we tend to see history, particularly in today’s partisan times, as either this or that. No human is perfect, not even Mahatma Gandhi or Winston Churchill. And just like British historians tend to forget some of Churchill’s excesses, in India, the army of Gandhi’s hagiographers ignore his early beliefs on race and his rather troublesome later years with regard to his personal life. We tend to brush inconvenient facts under the carpet and hope nobody notices. But eventually, every carpet is replaced and dust has a bad habit of not disappearing.

Churchill’s address to the House of Commons on how he and Britain would fight the Nazi menace is one of the greatest fighting speeches in history and British students learn of that from an early age. Churchill must be remembered for his actions during the War and after it. But that should not be used to gloss over his actions in India. Just like Indians must learn that despite Gandhiji’s greatness, the man had his warts. Sure, there are some truly despicable men who are still celebrated. As William Dalrymple wrote in The Guardian recently, the statue of Robert Clive in Whitehall is an affront to all Bengalis. But there is no denying the fact that Clive changed history. Maybe celebrating him with a statue is a bit much but one cannot erase history. No one can change that Christopher Columbus’ monumental navigational error led to the massacre of millions through disease and pestilence because back in the 15th century, we valued life very differently. But as we learn more, we should teach our children about history differently. We need a new breed of historians who can narrate these stories, the good, the bad and the ugly.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

As long as the US celebrates ‘the lost cause’ of the Southern States during the Civil War, 150 years ago, it will still be a racist country

The violent protests that have engulfed the US in the aftermath of the brutal murder of a Black man, George Floyd, by a White Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin, were marked by some extraordinary visuals. Of course, some malevolent forces trickled into the protests, driving both the looters and criminals. It is extremely likely that the sight of looting and the viral videos on social media of high-end stores being vandalised and looted will be beneficial for US President Donald Trump in the presidential election scheduled later this year. However, Trump’s penchant for making wildly inappropriate comments, coupled with Democratic contender Joe Biden maintaining a relatively studious silence, may still change the outcome.

But sitting in India, without much knowledge about contemporary American history, it is difficult to know about institutionalised racism and how poor race relations remain over there. The fact is that most Indians, indeed most global tourists and business persons who travel to the US, usually visit cosmopolitan cities, the likes of New York, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago. For a casual observer, seeing the tremendous success of some African-Americans — from former US President Barack Obama to the many, many such people who dominate professional sports such as basketball star LeBron James and the many actors like Morgan Freeman with an omnipotent voice, Beyonce’s dulcet tones and the scientific genius of Neil deGrasse Tyson — one would wonder why Black men and women do not receive acceptance across the nation.  Popular culture would make an outsider believe so.

One could rightly wonder why is it that at a time when America is sending astronauts into space in nearly a decade, other parts of the nation are burning? Comparisons between happenings in the late 1960s, when the American Apollo mission was in full swing and when racial riots broke during the civil rights movement, with that of the “crew dragon” mission and race riots happening today are telling. The only thing missing today is high-profile political assassinations; Black civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr and Democratic presidential contender Robert F Kennedy were shot dead during that time frame. We should be grateful that things have not become so bad this time around.

Now, I must clarify, I have spent a lot of time in the US (indeed the last country visited by me before the virus shut down everything) as a traveller, visiting various parts of that great and vast nation, both along the coasts and even the interiors, including the “Deep South.” I haven’t studied there. However, I have a strange and fascinating interest in “American” football. Being a bit of a war nerd, I spent a lot of time reading about some of the battles of the US Civil War that took place between the Northern “Union” States and the Southern “Confederate” States. This was a fascinating war, the first mechanised one of sorts that gave portends to the tactics used in the killing fields of World War-I. However, this is my perspective. It might seem infantile to some but this is what I believe sitting half a world away.

In India, what we learn about the US Civil War — with a few sentences being accorded to it in our school textbooks — is that it was fought between the progressive “North”, which was against slavery, and the pro-slavery “Southern” States. The “North” found a great political leader in Abraham Lincoln, who signed the emancipation declaration, thus freeing all the slaves. After much bloodshed, the “North” finally won and all was well with the world. This is the end. Go through the history textbooks, I’m sure this is a better explanation than many others.

Wars, in general, are too complex, not just because of the fighting but on account of the causes, too. Occasionally, there can be an overall societal acceptance that one side had a completely horrible cause; World War-II and Nazi Germany being examples. Now, modern Germany has eviscerated Nazi symbols. One can be charged for celebrating Nazi leaders or selling Nazi memorabilia in Germany today. In general, the German political leadership has accepted that their predecessors between 1930 and 1945 did something terrible even before the Jewish Holocaust. It is not as if the Germans have forgotten about the war. Indeed, some of their Generals, such as Erwin Rommel, famously known as the “Desert Fox,” are fondly remembered, partially because of their opposition to Adolf Hitler.

It would, therefore, seem logical to believe that the side that precipitated, fought and lost a war over the cause of keeping human beings enslaved should have suffered the same fate as Nazi Germany. Of course, one can make arguments like “degrees of evil” and all that but as an outside observer, it is extremely puzzling that instead of that, the US celebrates the rebels. It celebrates the Confederate Flag in popular culture. Television shows and subsequent movies like The Dukes of Hazzard had a Dodge Charger, the “General Lee”, with the Confederate Flag painted on its roof. Even a cursory car fan would have heard of this car.

Talking about “General Lee”, Robert Edward Lee, the man who led the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, is remembered in America as a hero even though he defended a lost cause. Lee was a great tactician but he did lead his army to a devastating loss at Gettysburg. The man who beat him, General Ulysses S Grant, one who became the US President soon after and one who is as brilliant a tactician and leader as Lee, is not remembered fondly. Thankfully this is changing today.

A lot of this has happened due to a number of reasons. Many Americans, particularly from the former Confederate States, remember the war as one about “States’ Rights” in a federal structure. And not as a war that had as its underlying cause the defence of basic human dignity, the fact that no man should be owned by anyone else. Something that one hopes that no matter what your current political affiliation today, you can agree with.

Although when one delves into it at a deeper level, he/she would realise the complexities and contradictions that happened on both sides many years ago. In today’s increasing simplistic age where nuanced arguments have withered away, it is easier to remember this as a war where the “rights” of States were trampled upon rather than remembering it as a war of conscience because it makes some Americans feel nicer about their forefathers.

There is no doubt that the US has made some great strides but one can easily question whether a person of colour could become the top elected official in any other Western nation. Yes, to this day, there are doubts whether  Obama could have won if he did not have a White mother and was raised by his White mid-western maternal grandparents but he was a two-term President. Even then, the killings of Black Americans by White police officers or even White civilians, who saw the Blacks as a threat, continued with little or no judicial prosecution. Take the case of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old Black school student, who was  shot dead by a White man, George Zimmerman, in “self defence”, an argument that was even accepted by the court.

The sad fact is that there are countless other such incidents — the famous Rodney King case in Los Angeles where nothing happened to the police officers who brutally beat the eponymous Black man.

Sure, the police in America is a highly militarised and trigger-happy force. It does have the right to defend itself in violent situations. That said, there are a disproportionate number of Black men, who are killed by the police in America. It is also a fact that within the police forces, there’s an inadequate representation of Black people. Institutionalised and accepted racism in the police forces, for the reasons outlined above, too, exists.

However, do not think that the irony of someone from India talking about police “brutality” is lost on this writer. This is a country where State-sanctioned “encounter killing” is celebrated by many with evidence that such “encounters” have been biased against minority communities for decades. This is a country where extra-judicial murder of rape-murder suspects in Hyderabad just a few months ago was celebrated by all and sundry on social media. This is also a country, where much like the US, the poor and those from the minority community are often jailed for years by a slow, inefficient and corrupt criminal justice system. The need for police and criminal justice reforms have been felt for years. One should not use the shield of what is happening in the US to pretend that India is any better.

As long as the US continues to celebrate the Civil War as one where States fought for their “rights” rather than uphold an abhorrent system, things will really not change. Having spent time in both Georgia and South Carolina, it is painfully clear to an outside observer, a man of colour like myself, that things are unlikely to change anytime soon. No matter how much people protest, casual discrimination is ingrained in the minds of many, just like it is back home.

(Writer: Kushan Mitra; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

It would be a big mistake to think that Trump’s anti-China rhetoric is just an election gimmick. It is a permanent policy plank of the core team of Trump presidency to exert pressure on Beijing whether it comes to trade, technology, South China Sea, Taiwan, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Tibet and even to China’s border conflicts with India

The new crisis that has cropped up between China and its rebel nation Taiwan highlights the “love-hate” relationship between the two. The root of the current stand-off lies in the belligerent posture maintained by the Xi Jinping regime. And the face-off has escalated with the re-election of the pro-independence Democratic People’s Party (DPP) candidate Tsai Ing-wen as the President and William Lai as her Vice-President of Taiwan.

Clearly the election outcome in Taiwan is a sharp rebuke to both Beijing and the pro-China parties in the island such as the Kuomintang (KMT). Besides China’s constant threat to reunify Taiwan with the mainland and the two groups of political actors — one for pro-independence and the other for merger in China — there is an external element, the strong voices from the international community mainly led by the US.

This results into the cross-strait relations between Taipei and Beijing getting more complicated, with the latest saga of events like the island nation’s inclusion in the World Health Assembly meeting on the sidelines of the current Covid-19 crisis.

China claims Taiwan as an inseparable part of it. However, the majority of the Taiwanese reject China’s claim as bluffs and declare itself as absolutely independent from Beijing. Whenever the matter of complete independence erupts, Beijing either threatens Taipei or airs strong warnings about possible fallout of such steps by the latter. Such extreme pronouncements from the mainland are quite common. In 2017, Yin Zhuo, a Chinese Rear Admiral in the Navy, said, “If the Democratic Progressive Party (Taiwan’s ruling party) declares independence, then we must go to war without any hesitation. If they declare independence, we will use military force to bring about unification, we must be very clear about that.”

Needless to say that with the coming of the DPP to power, the centrist forces in the island and the Communist Party in China have become equally concerned about the real intentions of the Tsai regime. Thus any move that leads to complete separation of Taiwan from the sovereign territory of China would tantamount to causing war.

The major cause of irritant for China in Taiwan is the constant American interference and engagement with the island. But then there is an official act known as the “1979 Taiwan Relations Act” that provides the legal basis for the unofficial relations between the US and Taiwan. This particular Act enshrines the American commitment to assist Taiwan in maintaining its defensive capability. Though the US officially does not support Taiwan’s independence, but the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) is solely responsible for implementing the US policy towards Taiwan.

Clearly, this is the bone of contention between the US and China. Washington has been developing close contacts with the island and its administration, but that is simply not acceptable to Beijing.

Historically, the 1979 US-People’s Republic of China (PRC) Joint Communique switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In this communique, America recognised the Government of the PRC as the sole Government of China. This again reiterates the fact that there is but one China and Taiwan is a part of China. But what has taken an ugly turn today is that only under this communiqué, the US is allowed to maintain cultural, commercial and other unofficial relations with Taiwan.

After this, what we need to know is the historic 1992 consensus that is critical in shaping and reshaping the relations between Taiwan and China. When Lee Teng-huei became the chairman of the KMT in 1988 and also became the first elected President of Taiwan in 1996 after the demise of Chiang Ching-kuo, the son of the founder of Taiwan i.e. Chiang Kai-shek. In 1988, he initiated talks with the mainland, and associations representing Beijing and Taipei met in Singapore in 1992. At the end of this historic meet, the representatives issued a document which read like this: Both sides agree that there is only one Chinese nation comprising all of mainland China, Taiwan, Penghu and the offshore islands; under this Chinese nation, there are two states and both sides agree to disagree on the definition of control of these two states. What follows from this is that basically both sides agreed that the other side existed, but they would disagree about everything else. What many of us miss in this agreement is that both sides agreed that Taiwan belonged to China, while continuing to disagree on which ‘China’, whether it is Republic of China or the Peoples Republic of China. As years passed, this came to be known as the ‘1992 Consensus’, which has been rightly rejected by the current ruling party in Taiwan.

The US, being the predominant power of the world, has a strong military presence in the Asia-Pacific, backed by its allies. Therefore any war-like situation over Taiwan would surely drag not only the US into this maelstrom, but also all its allies. And this could probably be the beginning of the Third World War. America’s growing influence in Taiwan starting from defence cooperation to people to people contact has irked China for long. When Tsai won her second term this year, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo congratulated her saying, “Her re-election by a huge margin shows that she has earned the respect, admiration and trust of the people on Taiwan. Her courage and vision in leading Taiwan’s vibrant democracy is an inspiration to the region and the world.”

With this remark coming from Washington last month, China has flashed its anger yet again for the US coming ever closer to Taiwan. In fact, the praise prompted China’s Ministry of Defense to issue a statement expressing strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition to Pompeo’s remarks. At the same time, its Foreign Ministry said it was “extremely indignant” at the message and accused Washington of breaching its diplomatic commitments. And what happened in the beginning of March was another pointer to America’s deeper ties with Taiwan, especially under the Donald Trump administration. On March 4, the US House of Representatives unanimously passed the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act. What is adding more weight towards the maintenance of Taiwan’s unique identity and independence in future is the very special character of the Act. This Act aims at inducing governments that are allies of Taiwan to maintain diplomatic ties with the country and to identify those at risk of sovereign relations with it.

It also calls for the US to supplement its diplomatic presence in countries that support Taiwan and reduce its diplomatic footprint if they side with Beijing. Further, the Act would give the Secretary of State the power to expand, reduce, or terminate US aid to countries depending on whether they improve, worsen or sever diplomatic relations with Taiwan. It finally calls for increased American support for Taiwan’s participation in global affairs. Closely looked at, this directly wants to bolster Taiwan’s claim for de facto independence.

What comes from the other side of the spectrum is that Beijing adheres to its one China policy as it is. That is why China registered its utter dissatisfaction with the US by saying the latest words coming from Pompeo is hurting the “sentiments of the 1.4 billion Chinese people”.

Taiwan’s re-elected President Tsai hoped for peaceful co-existence with China, but clearly disavows “one China framework” of Beijing. She again highlighted that “Here, I want to reiterate the words ‘peace, parity, democracy, and dialogue’. We will not accept the Beijing authorities’ use of ‘one country, two systems’ to downgrade Taiwan and undermine the cross-strait status quo. We stand fast by this principle.”

These words directly indicate what Taiwan under Tsai is looking for. On her inaugural speech, she vowed to fight for Taiwan’s participation in international organisations, strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation with its allies and bolster ties with the US, Japan, Europe and other like-minded countries. This definitely is slated for a tough fight with the Xi regime in the days to come.

At the centre of the China-Taiwan bitterness lies the sheer apprehension of the Taiwanese to be under the Communist dictatorship of the mainland. In the name of people’s democracy, what has been practised in China since the days of Mao Zedong till Xi is nothing but a pseudo-socialist system. The political system that prevails today in China is pure market capitalism in the disguised form of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Majority of the Taiwanese do not want to have a governance system like that of the mainlanders. The primary detest and hatred for Chinese political system emerges from the complete absence of basic freedoms, absolute disregard for human rights, and the public display of state-sponsored violence by Beijing. Secondly, since historically and geographically, both Taiwan and China live apart, the people of Taiwan have developed a taste for independence from the beginning. However such claims though buttressed by the Taiwanese side, the mainland outrightly rejects them. For Beijing, Taiwan is a breakaway province and its reunification is a must either by peace or by force.

China’s potential danger comes from its own people. The world’s most populated nation is simply scared of its own populace. The discontents emerging from its population are not allowed to be surfaced anywhere else. It has been suppressed for decades with an iron fist by its successive communist regimes. When it comes to Taiwan, it is certain that the sensitivity of the Taiwan issue will remain intact as a permanent thaw between Washington and Beijing is far-fetched. With Xi’s war theatrics and grand propaganda of fulfilling his “China Dream”, the cross-strait relations would continue to be in focus.

Again, if Trump returns to power, it may bolster the China skeptics to continue the trade war with China. It would be a big mistake to think that Trump’s anti-China rhetoric is just an election gimmick. It is a permanent policy plank of the core team of Trump presidency to exert pressure on Beijing whether it comes to trade, technology, South China Sea, Taiwan, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Tibet and even to China’s border conflicts with India.

Hence, the future of China-Taiwan relations is heading for a chaos. Certainly, there is no chance of an imminent war. But it serves as one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the world, particularly when two nuclear giants are engaged. China’s status of being a trade behemoth mainly emboldens it to spur its campaign against major powers of the world, especially against the US. But then derailing a powerful coalition of Western forces would be extremely difficult for China at any time in future.

Instead of competing and contesting the US, China must see to it that its own territories are secured and its citizens enjoy basic human rights. Suppressing the populace back home in the mainland and particularly in Hong Kong would cost Beijing in future. Only mere force applying through the PLA would not help sustaining the Xi model of permanent presidency across all the overseas territories of China.

What seems permanent is that the ill-will between Taipei and Beijing is going to continue. Admittedly, the tension between the two has risen to an all-time high under Xi. Though Tsai is leaving after this term, the DPP and its liberation philosophy can’t be obliterated from the Taiwanese soil. With a sixth generation of leadership not coming to take over (because of Xi’s permanent presidency), it definitely adds worry to internal party consensus over Xi’s presidency after his two terms. These are serious threats to Xi and his core team. Therefore maintaining an iron fist at home and sloganeering unification over Taiwan and Hong Kong would be successful only in rhetoric.

Taiwan would remain what it is today, physically alienated, economically tied with the mainland and politically distant foes forever. So the war of words and weapons between the ROC and the PRC will nowhere head for perpetual peace.

(Writer: Makhan Saikia; Courtesy: The Pioneer)