Bibi Aasia Noreen, the Pakistani Christian woman who was on death row for blasphemy, is finally out of the woods. The Supreme Court of Pakistan recently rejected the final appeal against her acquittal. But she might still have to relocate to the West, as living in Pakistan could prove perilous for her. India could have set an example by inviting her to live in this country.

Imagine if Aasia Bibi were a Christian woman in India, working in an agricultural field alongside Hindu women. Consider a hypothetical scenario. Thirsty after working under the hot sun, she fetches a pail of water for fellow workers, but first drinks some herself from the metal mug lying beside the well. The other women,  suddenly realising that she is a Christian, wonder whether Aasia Bibi had “polluted” their well and “diluted” their religion. And then, angered and hurt, Aasia Bibi reacts by telling some horrible things about Hindu deities as though she had been reading BR Ambedkar’s Riddles in Hinduism: The Annotated Critical Selection the previous night.

What options would Hindu women have against Aasia Bibi? First, a cat-fight to teach her a lesson on the spot. Second, tell the owner of the land to dismiss her from services. Third, to complain to their respective husbands about the defilement. Fourth, to tell the priest about a local temple. Fifth, go to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) karyakartas. Sixth, to go to the law enforcing authorities like police and court.

The third and fourth options would have been treated as nothing more than gossip-mongering. Also, since Aasia Bibi  is not a Bible-thumping Christian missionary, there would be little to excite the RSS and VHP karyakartas. The fifth option of approaching the law enforcing authorities would be positively dangerous for them as they would be hauled up under Section 3 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, to enforce religious disabilities (denying access to water sources). Thus, rather than doing any harm to Aasia Bibi, they themselves would have ended up in prison for  up to six months besides depositing a penalty.

But on June 14, 2009, Aasia Bibi was unfortunately in an alternate universe called Pakistan. She was arrested on charges of making derogatory remarks about Prophet Mohammed, based on the evidence of Mafia Bibi and Asma Bibi. Qari Mohammed Salam, a local cleric, filed a case of blasphemy with the police, based on hearsay. The case spiralled in importance with a local court awarding death sentence to Aasia Bibi   for denigrating Prophet Mohammed in 2010, and later a Lahore court upholding its judgement in 2016.

The Pakistan Penal Code has several controversial sections (and sub sections thereof) ranging from 295 to 298-C under offences related to religion, commonly called “blasphemy laws” that are discriminatory against non-Muslims. The most dangerous of them are 295-C (use of derogatory remarks with respect to Prophet Mohammed) and 295-B (defiling the Holy Quran) which carry a punishment of mandatory death sentence and life imprisonment respectively.

Some of these deadly provisions were inserted in Pakistan’s Penal Code not when the Islamic Republic was founded but in the 1980s, when the rest of the world was seized with the idea of progress. Pakistan had inherited some blasphemy laws from the British period but those were religion-neutral. Their basic purpose was not to defend religious principles but maintain communal peace.

In three decades between 1947 and 1977, there were only 10 reported court judgements in Pakistan pertaining to offences against religion. The complaints were made mostly by Muslims against other Muslims, by non-Muslims against Muslims. No case was registered by a Muslim against non-Muslims for committing an act of blasphemy against Prophet Mohammed or “defiling” the Quran. But all these was about to change soon.

In 1974, when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was the Prime Minister, the first amendment in the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, was carried out to exclude the Ahmediyas from the legal definition of being a Muslim. The language of the amendment had a theological overtone incompatible with modern constitutions. It says that a person, who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the prophethood of the Mohammed, is not a Muslim for the purpose of the Constitution or law.

In 1977, General Zia-ul Haq came to power through a coup d’état. The ensuing 11 years saw increased Islamisation of Pakistan in various spheres. These included insertion of five provisions relating to blasphemy in the Pakistan Penal Code between 1980 and 1986. Close to 1,500 people have been charged under those sections till date though none were actually hanged.

A Federal Shariat Court (FSC) was established in 1980, with the power to “examine and decide the question whether any law or provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam”. The FSC’s decisions are binding upon the Government unless the latter successfully appeals to the Shariat bench of the Supreme Court.

When Section 295-C was introduced in 1986, it had a provision of life imprisonment as an alternative to capital punishment. But in 1990, the FSC recommended the removal of alternative provision of life imprisonment. Since the Pakistan Government did not appeal against this recommendation in the Supreme Court by the deadline of April 30, 1991, the capital punishment without an alternative attained finality.

A judgement of Peshawar High Court in 2006 expressed serious concern that whenever a person was charged with such an offence, the media gave extensive coverage and the accused person was abused by the society/people at large. Even under Islamic injunctions, the court added, it is for the Qazi alone to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused and none could be allowed to forejudge and condemn any person accused of such offence without facing proper and fair trial.

Right to fair trial is what the Supreme Court based its case upon in its judgements (dated October 7, 2015, and January, 28, 2019). But unfortunately, the court could not discard or challenge the atrocious rubric of blasphemy laws. This means there will be no end to this madness in Pakistan. The courts could not counteract blasphemy because they know it is an integral part of Islam. Its misuse though has been possibly as old as its application itself.

Nicholas Mannucci (1638-1717), the Italian adventurer to India, relates in his Storia do Mogor how a rich Jew in Aleppo (Syria) outwitted a Muslim Governor, who wanted to deprive him of his wealth,  life and religion by abetting blasphemy in the 16th century. The Governor asked the Jew, who was the greatest Prophet among Moses, Christ and Mohammed? Had the Jew said Mohammed, he would be asked to accept Islam. Had he mentioned the others, it would be considered a blasphemy and he would be put to death.

The Jew, however, proved cleverer than expected. He narrated a story of how a rich man had a precious stone, which each of his three sons wanted to inherit on his death. So he got two exact replicas made from the lapidaire; and gave away those to each son so that one had the original and the other two had replicas. But he told each to keep it a secret that he had given him the original and the false one to others. But only the father knew who got the original. So God gave three Prophetic  religions viz Judaism, Christianity and Islam to three races. While each thinks his religion is true, God alone knows the truth. The Muslim governor conceded defeat in his mission and even rewarded the Jew.

(The writer is author of recently published book, ‘The Microphone Men: How Orators created a Modern India’. Views expressed are his personal)

Writer: Priyadarshi Dutta

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Under the leadership of Xi Jinping, China is rapidly emerging with an ambitious global agenda to extend its economic and military influence worldwide and thereby reshape the world order. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a manifestation of China’s desire to establish economic and military hegemony over vast resource-rich regions in Asia and Africa and to dominate the European and American markets.

Though China portrays the BRI as a scheme of connectivity and economic partnerships with countries and regions, in reality it is a cover for expanding military presence in those regions through dual use infrastructure.

To achieve economic and military hegemony, China is employing the “debt trap” policy in the most effective way. In December 2017, China got the control of newly built port of Hambantota due to Sri Lanka’s inability to repay debt.

According to reports, Kenya is also facing the risk of losing control over the port of Mombasa to China under similar circumstances.

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is the BRI’s flagship project. Gwadar, a city of great geographic importance, is at the heart of this project. The CPEC project not only provides the shortest land route from Kashgar to Gwadar, but it also allows access to important sea routes and connects China with its bases at Djibouti, Hambantota and Mombasa.

China and Pakistan deny military use of the CPEC, but the project actually provides military bases to China at different strategic points off the Baloch coast. This is meant to ensure Chinese military hegemony over the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean and the most significant sea lane of the Strait of Hormuz.

In case, China and Pakistan succeed to build and make operational the roads, railway tracks and military bases under the CPEC, the former will surely be able to reshape the world order, dominate the vast resource-rich regions of Balochistan, West Asia, Central Asia, Horn of Africa and beyond. China will also be able to encircle India, the largest democracy and a large market.  China will use the Gwadar port to overshadow the ports of Dubai and Chabahar.

Land route from Kashgar to the Gwadar port will certainly reduce Chinese dependence on sea routes passing through the waters of countries which are at loggerheads with China. In case of any conflict with the South China Sea contestants, the CPEC will provide an alternative supply route to Chinese markets. Such an advantageous situation for China will obviously generate enormous threats to regional and world security, peace, prosperity, democratic values, human rights and freedoms because both China and its client state of Pakistan profess anti-democratic ideologies and support authoritarian Governments.

Despite the fact that the BRI and the CPEC pose obvious threats to the world and regional peace and order, the world powers seem reluctant to contest it seriously. The only serious opposition to the CPEC is from the Baloch people of Balochistan.

China has entered into agreements with Pakistan over Balochistan, where people see Pakistan as an unlawful occupier and exploiter. These agreements are in violation of the ownership and proprietary rights of the people of Balochistan over their land, sea and natural resources. With Chinese technology, machinery and money, the CPEC will strengthen Pakistan’s ability to continue its exploitative rule and plunder natural resources of Balochistan. China and Pakistan are already extracting gold, copper, silver and iron from Saindak and other mines in Balochistan. The CPEC will also alter the demography of coastal Balochistan rendering the Baloch people a minority in their own motherland.

Balochistan’s opposition to the CPEC is  a matter of the people’s survival as a nation, their ownership and proprietary rights over their own land, sea and natural resources.  Its freedom movement is a key check to Chinese hegemonic designs in the region. For instance, an independent Balochistan would provide a safe corridor of connectivity, trade and transit for South Asia, West Asia, Central Asia and East Africa. It would provide safe access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. An independent, secular and democratic Balochistan will possess the potential to be instrumental in the promotion and augmentation of democratic and secular values in the terrorism-affected regions of South Asia, West Asia, Central Asia and Afghanistan.

With its unique location, huge depots of mineral resources, democratic and secular values, Balochistan will become an epicentre of regional cooperation and connectivity, economic development, trade, transit and combating religious extremism and terrorism.

(The writer is former Secretary General of Baloch National Movement. He tweets at @RahimBaloch)

Writer: Rahim Baloch

Courtesy: The Pioneer

China is very fond of Silk Roads. In 2013, a year after Xi Jinping was anointed Emperor of the Middle Kingdom, he initiated a Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Since then, the Chinese diplomacy has been tirelessly promoting the mega project to link the country to its neighbours as well as to Central Asia, Africa and Europe. Beijing’s latest promotional move has been to confer the Silk Road Super Ambassador Awards to the Ambassadors of Pakistan, the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Malta and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Pakistani Ambassador to China, Masood Khalid, told The Global Times: “Our cooperation is very broad and is expanding, so we are happy. We are confident that as we move forward, we will see more tangible progress in our cooperation.”

One may think that the BRI has opened new avenues between the people of China and Pakistan and that the route between Gilgit and Xinjiang is wide opened to Pakistanis to trade with China. But it is not the case — the BRI seems to be just a state-to-state affair, without any concern for the ‘people’ from both sides. To give an example, a few weeks ago, Reuters reported: “Pakistani businessmen, whose wives and children are trapped in China’s restive Xinjiang, are travelling to Beijing to lobby with their Embassy, with hopes that the south Asian nation’s new Government will pressure its ally for their release.”

Deutsche Welle of Germany explained: “Due to Xinjiang’s proximity to Gilgit-Baltistan, the residents of the two areas have shared long historical, cultural and family ties. Many Uighurs are married to the Gilgit-Baltistan locals and vice versa.” The pretext for closing down the border is China’s suspicion about the alleged association of Uighurs with Islamist extremists. China’s Silk Roads are clearly not for the common man, though Nepal, too, is speaking of Xi’s project in laudatory terms.

On January 9, Jameson Lamudhali Layi, the Nepali Consul General in Lhasa (Tibet), told the website China Tibet Online: “I’m really looking forward that the Qinghai-Tibet Railway would reach the city of Kyirong on the China-Nepalese border, which will connect Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal, with many cities in China, including Lhasa. …This will be very beneficial and very important to our country.”

The Chinese official website continued: “As the ongoing friendship and collaborations between China and Nepal continue to develop, the extension of the Lhasa-Shigatse Railway is also a project people of both countries are looking forward to.”

Everybody does see it this way; Uddhab P Pyakurel, an Assistant Professor in the School of Arts in Kathmandu, wrote a well-researched paper pointing to the historical and proximate relationship between Nepal and Tibet before China came into the picture. The scholar analyses how this relationship has changed from a striving one to “a stage that is only formal and rhetoric.” He said that the opening of the Rasuwagadi (Kyirong) border has been welcomed by Kathmandu “as if China has shown a great sympathy for Nepalis.” Pyakurel then asserted: “But evidences show that the Chinese proposal to strengthen activities through Kyirong border was just to avoid negative impressions about China in Nepal.” Another landport where local trade was taking place has recently been closed, though “it is reported that the Chinese officials keep promising to open it but do not confirm when they would open the customs points.”

The scholar accused China of progressively eliminating “both the local trade carried on by the inhabitants of the Nepal-Tibet border and the traditional transportation trans-border pasturage-usage system under which pastures on both sides of the boundary were used at different times of the year by Nepali and Tibetan herdsmen.”

Pyakurel gave a detailed account of the successive treaties since 1956, which made it more and more difficult for local traders to deal with Tibet …while the state-to-state business bloomed. This comes at a time when China is opening another port with Nepal: The new corridor lies dangerously close to the strategic State of Sikkim.

Kimathanka is one of the smallest and  remotest hamlets in the North-eastern district of Sankhuwasabha of eastern Nepal; the village is strategically located as it lies at the border with Tibet (China). The Kathmandu Post affirmed that it is “a crucial strategic location for Nepal as the country strives to increase its connectivity with the northern neighbour.”

In April 2018, Nepal’s Foreign Minister, Pradeep Gyawali, visited Beijing, where he met Vice President of China, Wang Qishan, and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi. He spoke of “expediting past agreements, developing trans-Himalayan multi-dimensional transport networks and building a China-Nepal-India economic corridor.” Gyawali said that China is Nepal’s genuine friend and a trusted ally: “We should build on the excellent roots of civilisational, geographical and cultural affinities to further connect our countries and societies in order to achieve common prosperity in the trans-Himalayan region.”

Once the new corridor is opened, it will have serious strategic implications for India as it will open via Birarnagar, a new strategic and unwanted gate to India through Kishanganj and Siliguri. Here, too, no people-to-people exchange.

As the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to India is announced for February or March, it could be an occasion for the Government to question him about the new corridor and remind him about Demchok, the last Ladakhi village on the road to western Tibet.

For centuries, Demchok witnessed caravans from Kashmir, Ladakh or Central Asia bringing goods (delicious apricots among others) to the Roof of the World. Ironically, ‘The Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between Tibet Region of China and India’, remembered as the Panchsheel Agreement, signed on April 28, 1954, literally killed the age-old border trade.

Suddenly, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), which had taken control over the plateau, stopped Ladakhi traders from selling their goods in Tibet; it marked the end of one of the most flourishing Silk Roads. There was a reason for it, China was building a road across the Aksai Chin, an Indian territory, and the PLA did not want witnesses to the construction.

If Beijing is serious about trans-boundary trade, it has no option but to re-open the old traditional routes, be it the Khunjerab Pass with Pakistan, the passes between Nepal and Tibet or the old routes like the Demchok caravan road. But is China ready to do this? Let us hope that Mr Modi will at least ask President Xi Jinping.

(The writer is an expert on India-China relations and an author)

Writer: Claude Arpi

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The Chinese use a term ‘xuanchuán’, which literally means propaganda — an intrinsic tact of the Communist Party of China (CPC) to legitimise various state actions and to posture a certain inevitable destiny, muscularity and invincibility among all stakeholders, domestically and externally. The Chinese leadership often teases and releases unverifiable information about its military preparedness and technological advancements. The deliberate sneak-peak of the fifth generation stealth fighter plane J-20, nuclear submarines, aircraft carrier programme and cruise missiles among others are all a part of the intimidation and muscle-flexing exercise. A carefully calibrated media environment advances a narrative of the next-generation capabilities like hypersonic weaponry, cyberwarfare and an overall security framework that entails the most advanced ‘anti-access/area-denial’ military doctrines (A2/AD). This perception of the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) capability (entailing ground forces, Navy, Air Force, rocket force and strategic support force) then supports the more political and diplomatic aggression that the Chinese leadership indulges on its expansionist agenda in Taiwan and South China Sea belligerence. This sense of ‘war-clouds’ was implicit in the Chinese President Xi Jinping’s first order of 2019 to the PLA, where he stated, “All military units must correctly understand major national security and development trends and strengthen their sense of unexpected hardship, crisis and battle”.

Undeniably, the PLA is the largest military force in the world (two million active strength) with the second largest defence budget of $175 billion, annually. This is nearly four times that of India ($45 billion) and it grew at an unprecedented rate of eight per cent over the previous year. This generous outlay was possible due to the Chinese economic juggernaut that affords the indulgences of the interlinked diplomatic-military Chinese footprint across the globe and funds crucial investments for the PLA’s modernisation and technology development. Yet, military analysts are not entirely convinced of the PLA’s battle-preparedness.

For starters, the PLA is still technically a ‘party Army’ and is given to distractive and time-consuming indoctrination sessions at all operational levels by political officers of the CPC. While all career officers of the PLA are CPC members, the apex decision-making body for the PLA is drawn from  the communist party committees that are dominated by civilian party members and ideologues, as opposed to career military men. The state is forever paranoid about regime-change (especially after the Tiananmen Square incident), and, therefore, the top brass of the PLA is firmly reined in under the party directive that could affect serious soldiering, culture and professional efficacy.

The second major concern is the operational ‘jointsmanship’ among various serving arms of the PLA as that requires a coordinated fighting capability, responsive command system, logistical/maintenance framework and inter-service interlinkages for a seamless operation — these shortcomings have been routinely pointed out and internally accepted with concerted efforts being made to overcome the same. The days of Chinese ‘human wave attacks’ a la 1962 are passé, and the Gulf Wars of the 1990s exposed the hollowness of simple ‘numeric superiority’ and ‘ideological armies’ as opposed to professional soldiering. Islands of technological advancements and advanced weaponry need to coincide with the requisite skills, training and handling experience of effectively deploying the same under combat-stress situations by the soldiers.

Unlike most major militaries (the US, NATO, Russia and India among others) that have partaken in the invaluable and irreplaceable experience of combat operations, the Chinese PLA remains the most combat-inexperienced major military in the world. All four key elements of war — soldiering, leadership, weaponry and doctrines — are posited on conjecture and untested claims. The last major combat for PLA was 40 years ago against Vietnam, where the ostensibly inferior Vietnamese forces inflicted a serious blow to the bungled Chinese invasion.

Earlier still, and contrary to 1962, the Sino-Indian clashes at Cho La and Nathu La in 1967 had resulted in a bloody nose for the PLA. Purely from the time perspective, that leaves virtually no one in the active PLA with any battle experience. Despite breathing fire on Taiwan, Japan or incidents like Doklam, the PLA has not secured any tangible ground on the ‘enemy’. In comparison, the US has been involved in the Middle East and Afghanistan in recent times, the Indian (and Pakistani) forces have had Kargil and multiple domestic insurgencies that have consistently tested their ‘software’ and ‘hardware.’  The US has tested its prime weaponry like the GBU-43/B (‘mother of all bombs’) in Afghanistan, its F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jets in ‘combat surges’ over Syria, as reportedly have the Russians, who deployed their SU-57 stealth fighter prototypes. Vladimir Shamanov, the Russian Duma’s Defence Committee head, has claimed that Russia has tested ‘over 200 new weapons’ in Syria. Whereas, the efficacy of advanced Chinese weaponry is a matter of pure claims by Beijing.

The PLA is undoubtedly undergoing a major overhaul and investment in terms of material upgradation, training and integration. However, all these investments are predicated on the continuing ‘bull run’ of the Chinese economy — dark clouds of an economic slowdown loom and China has recorded its slowest growth rate since 1990. The inevitable US-China trade wars, too, will take their own toll and can trigger unfathomable headaches for the CPC to manage. This could usher in a revised set of priorities (for example, cuts for PLA and defence industry) for the CPC in order to keep the more important lid on its restive masses from questioning the regime during an economic downturn. The famed ‘cheque-book’ diplomacy to ‘buy out’ sovereign loyalty, for example  CPEC, Djibouti or Philippines, could also become an immediate casualty. Lastly, the recent Chinese belligerence has led to the emergence of powerful counter-opposition to checkmate China’s ambitions. The ‘Quad’ (US, Japan, Australia and India) is also symptomatic of the strategic evolution that works to the detriment of the Chinese. Perhaps like its economic juggernaut that has apparently ‘overheated’, China’s diplomatic-military assertions and bellicosity by the PLA are a lot more about posturing than it can realistically sustain or ‘bite’. It will remain the cynosure for the US, and to that extent, the saber-rattling by the Chinese PLA is here to stay. A closer analysis, however, leaves a lot of unanswered questions on its battle preparedness.

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

Writer: Bhopinder Singh

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The strategy to whip up religious sentiments by harping on the issue of numerical preponderance of a particular community has helped certain terrorist organisations create and reinforce their base to indulge in proxy war with states across the globe. Central Asia is no exception to this.

The recent terror attacks in Scandinavian region, particularly in Stockholm and Istanbul, highlight the fact that the region continues to sit on a powder keg. These Central Asian nations face myriad challenges.

In addition to the question of economic aggrandisement and nation-building exercise, there have been a number of security related issues. According to recent reports, many individuals and non–state actors operating from the Central Asian Region (CAR) have been held responsible for exporting terrorism. Rampant  use of battery improvised devices, knives and cars in individual terror attacks, massacring foreign tourists and hostage takings have been some recent tactics adopted by terrorists operating from Turkey, Norway, Sweden and Uzbekistan. Recently there were attempts to export terrorism from Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. On account of rapid rise in terror threats, Moscow recognised the need to set up Troika alliance in the past.

The need for a common security apparatus has exposed Central Asia’s long painful process of institution building. The recent influx of illegal migrants and spate of terrorist activities in China and Russia have shaken them off complacency and compelled them to seek cooperation for tackling the menace of transnational terrorism.

The relatively calm profile of CAR took a beating when Democratic Party, the Rastokhez Front and Islamic Revivalist Party organised the anti-government activities in Tajikistan during May 1991. This exposed simmering discontent among Muslim communities and created background for psychological ambience for the growth of Islamic militancy in the region. Besides, spate of activities in Moscow-based Islamic Renaissance Party gave a fresh impetus to Islamist groups across the entire CAR.

The influx of refugees from disturbed areas of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Iraq and Syria has added a new dimension to the existing problem. Although Russia has always acknowledged the economic and political significance of the region, its policies towards locals have been not been consistent as desired by these groups. Its policies wavered in attempts to persuade national minorities to acquiesce to or assimilate into the Russian culture.

While there is abundance of oil, natural gas resources, minerals, cotton, textile commodity in the CAR, the region still has to catch up with advanced countries with regard to job facilities, housing, consumer commodities and education.

Some critiques hold lack of economic and political will responsible for the vulnerability of the region. The people in CAR are expecting governments to accelerate plan formulations and undertake  prompt measures for improving access to the means of production, economic opportunities such as proper usage of natural resources, income and employability and developing the capability of locals to produce more.

Besides, the governments in this region need to cooperate and coordinate with regard to any security challenge posed by terrorists. Since service sector is quite impressive in CAR, particularly in Kazakhstan amounting for more than 50 per cent of the total GDP, the key to economic transformation lies in integrating it further.

The disgruntled groups have constantly expressed their dissatisfaction, many times violently. Thus, riots and bomb blasts occur at regular intermissions. The brands of distraught people have gained tremendous support from refugees who have immigrated to escape ethnic strife in neighbouring countries.

Fundamentalists have acquired sophisticated arms, training and developed a close network with rogue nations around the world.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, then Communist leader Islam Karimov formed his Government in Uzbekistan and Sepermurad Niyazov became the President of Turkmenistan. Both these Governments were authoritative in nature and very unresponsive to the dissatisfied groups. As a result many splinters emerged within groups.

The fundamentalist Islamic factions have often lashed out at the governments in CAR. Consequently the governments expressed their concern about the separatist forces and foresaw the necessity of using force to keep the lid on the ethnic cauldron.

Although it is difficult to predict what new ideas and strategies could help CAR to improve economic situation and develop security capabilities, it is evident that to a large extent economic activities in the coming years will be influenced by the region’s capability to fight inflation and develop anti-terrorist mechanism.

Central Asia is of immense value to the world because of its strategic location and very rich oil resources. The US has already declared CAR as very crucial region for strategic purpose. In addition to the economic importance it attaches to the region, the US is apparently keen on checking the rise of Islamic militancy and Russian influence. The growing mistrust between Moscow and Washington for their respective influence in CAR has made the entire region a playground for power game. China has already started spreading its wings all over the region in order to ensure its rising hegemony. For Afghanistan, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran, the region has great potential for economic and cultural exchanges. The most important link is the Islamic solidarity which is lately getting culminated in the form of sponsored agents of terror. Most European countries are concerned and worried about the possibility of increasing Muslim fundamentalism in the region.

If unchecked, fundamentalism nurturing militancy can pose serious challenges to the neighbouring countries. This is evident from the chaos in Syria and disturbances in Afghanistan. On the other hand, China is worried about the presence of Uyghur Muslim ethnic group in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. There are roughly about 7.32 million Uyghurs in Xinjiang province of China. Recently there has been upsurge in the militant activities of Uyghur in Xinjiang.

The interest of the Muslim countries in the region is not limited to commerce alone. They want to influence the CAR in Islamic terms. Although more articulate and accurate efforts by intelligence and security agencies can provide more information about such groups of the region, there is still a confusion whether such mechanism is successful in dealing with these terrorists who are driven by misinterpretation of the religion. In such a situation the Troika must ensure that the fundamentalists do not operate from the bases in safe heavens of rogue countries. The best way perhaps would be to identify the areas of national and regional resilience and develop capabilities domestically and externally for combating terrorism.

Thus apart from monitoring the crucial issues of political stability and economic development of the region, the Central Asian countries should undertake issues related to strategic partnership to handle the rising tide of international monster.

(Author is Chandigarh-based Professor of Political Science and an expert on strategic affairs)

Writer: Sudhir Hindwan

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Of all the speeches, tweets and off-the-cuff remarks which together constitute President Donald J Trump’s articulation of the US’ global policy priorities and ideological positions (or lack thereof), there has never been one that defines his presidency more than his address to the United Nations in end-2017.

It was the most unambiguous speech by a world leader to the globe’s most ambiguous institution in recent history. In a sense, it was a rather effective exercise in showing the mirror to the UN. He started off by putting the cat firmly among the pigeons by reminding the gathering that President Harry S Truman was instrumental in establishing the UN as an organisation specifically for post-WW II nation-states to help build democratic institutions in their respective countries that would strengthen member-states’ sovereignty and help them serve their citizens better.

It was a timely intervention. After all, someone needed to juxtapose what was intended with what the UN has become — a sinecure for the elite of various nations which passes ineffective and often unimplementable resolutions, an illiberal club which has ended up bestowing legal rights to groups at the cost of the individual and an organisation that happily tolerates grotesque aberrations of a Libya or Sudan finding a place on its human rights council, for example.

Trump also laid out his doctrine for America’s place in the world which, over the past year and a bit since his speech, seems to have been broadly accepted by the American establishment though his style of doing things is, perfectly understandably, unacceptable to many, including the simpatico. But let us not confuse style with substance. This doctrine emphatically underlines the supremacy of the nation-state in global interaction and/or cooperation while championing sovereignty, security and prosperity for them individually.

Crucially, he was careful to emphasise the demonstration effect of robust, liberal, democracies even as he iterated that Washington was not in favour of imposing a way of life on others and was accepting of diversity in governance models across the globe which may not albeit be ideal. Where he was explicit was in calling out Iran/Yemen, as corrupt, despotic (Islamist) dictatorships and Cuba/Venezuela as corrupt, totalitarian (Socialist) dictatorships. He did, of course, take a swipe at Russia and China, without naming them, for their expansionist moves in the Ukraine and the South China Sea respectively as well. But there was a qualitative difference in the latter criticism, rooted as it was more in fighting both countries as global power competitors as opposed to the “bogus internationalism” of the so-called Islamist/Socialist countries which are ideologically committed to undermining the global order premised on nation-states or blocs thereof as the primary unit of interaction. (North Korea and Syria, also attacked by Trump, represent proxy threats for the US and are a discussion for elsewhere.)

His definition of such rogue nations as the “wicked few” and his exhortation to “decent nations not to become bystanders” were just sound and fury signifying American strategic interests, so they need not detain us here. But his frontal attack on bogus internationalism and exhortation to all UN member nation-states to put their country first just as he was putting America first provides India the opportunity it needs to recalibrate its own place in the world at a time of geo-strategic flux.

In calling for a renewal of the founding principle of the UN, which is its member-states’ sovereignty, focussing on outcomes not ideology and adhering to what may be termed principled realism, the US, if it continues down this path, has opened up space for India to attempt and secure its strategic interests in a substantial manner. To be facile, all we need is to replace Iran with Pakistan in the countries listed by Trump at the UN and we are good to go! The reality, of course, is more complicated than that; for example, Saudi Arabia should in an ideal world make it to any list of despotic Islamic regimes but it is neither in the US’ nor India’s interest to proffer such a suggestion. The situation, however, is not so complicated as to not provide New Delhi enough leverage to make space for itself at the high table, provided we keep our domestic internal security situation under control, economic growth robust and democratic institutions ticking over despite the odd setback or two. Especially, given Washington’s targeting as articulated by Trump in his UN speech of those nations which support and promote the aims of “Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Taliban and others”, the last-mentioned presumably keeping the door open for inclusion of terrorist tanzeems operating in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir in this list.

Of course, in isolating pseudo-socialist totalitarian regimes and repressive Islamic theocracies — though that does not mean one doesn’t deal with them in one’s national interest even if with a pinched nose — Trump is focussed on US interests; the trick for New Delhi to pull off is to see how far our interests align with Washington’s given this once-in-a-generation opportunity. It is not only about meta-narratives but also the smaller issues on which there is an emerging convergence of views.

For example, Trump was emphatic in telling the UN that pressure by its refugee organisation on the US to allow refugees stateside was in effect dictatorial, chipped away at sovereignty and untenable. At the cost of resettling one refugee in the US, we can help 10 make a better life in their own countries, he said. New Delhi, grappling with similar pressure despite not having the economic wherewithal of the US in regard to, say, accommodating Rohingya refugees, should obviously take note. It is the citizens of low-income neighbouring countries who bear the cost both of refugees fleeing conflict and oppression or plain economic migrants.

US emphasis on result/outcome-orientated global actions, however, does require a fundamental reform of the United Nations itself. That is where the real opportunity for India lies if it can find common ground with the US. For example, given his transactional approach, President Trump has been quick to articulate the long-standing grouse of the American conservative establishment that the US’ contribution to the UN budget is 22 per cent of the total despite the US being just one of the UN’s 193 member-states. But he was quick to add even while encouraging other members to contribute more that the investment was worth it if peace and global order could be delivered. The disproportionate military/financial contribution of the US in terms of the influence it has on the world body is a sentiment India is in a good position to exploit if it is adroit in the steps it needs to take to secure its strategic objectives.

The US President’s paean to the nation-state and advocacy of independent, strong, prosperous countries guiding the UN as the best way to secure peace in our time as opposed to letting far-off, faceless bureaucracies such as the UN have the deciding say is in consonance with the approach of the Indian deep state. It’s better to have people taking ownership of their future rather than be led by a paternalistic global elite that in the name of seeking mutual bliss-points ignores the oppressive nature of the regimes that push this line.

(The writer is an independent journalist and commentator based in New Delhi.)

Writer: Ishan Joshi

Courtesy: The Pioneer

From an Indian perspective, Afghanistan turned out to be the flavour of the fourth edition of the Raisina Dialogue at New Delhi, which, compared to other international dialogues, is still in its infancy, given that it was flagged off as one of the three or four universal concerns/hot spots. The presence of the evergreen former President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, whose dislike for the US and Pakistan has visibly mellowed; Gen David Petraeus, the key proponent and leader of the US military surge in Afghanistan; Indian Army Chief Gen Bipin Rawat, who threw a bombshell with his advocacy of unconditional talks with the Taliban; and the Nangarhar native Pashtun, Zalmay Khalilzad, in his new role as the US’ points person on the reinvigorated peace process, threw up some interesting ideas.   Incidentally, S Khalilzad, in his book, The Envoy: From Kabul to the White House, My Journey Through a Turbulent World, and various presentations had recommended the ‘Richard Armitage’ treatment of Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan: Bombing them to the stone age.

For the transactional US President Donald Trump, cutting the US losses and exiting Afghanistan were pre-election promises, though he was persuaded by the likes of Gen Jim Mattis (now resigned over the issue) to stay the course. Trump’s sudden announcement to de-induct from Syria and reduce US troops in Afghanistan (later rescinded) last month is part of a cost-cutting and burden-sharing exercise. US troops are the most expensive — eight GIs for one jawan — to maintain in the world, given their tail of commodes to chewing gum. But it is also clear that even Trump will not walk out of Afghanistan, given the bilateral strategic security pact with Afghanistan, including the need for retention of bases at Bagram and Kandahar. Trump’s famous but short-lived Afghan policy enunciated in August 2017 is all but dead. From being the villain of the piece and part of the problem, Pakistan has bounced back to being the pivotal player in the peace process. After blaming Pakistan for destabilising Afghanistan, Trump was forced to seek Prime Minister Imran Khan’s help in taming the Taliban.

So where is the peace process? Khalilzad has been in the job for just five months. After three failed attempts to get the Taliban to talk to Kabul, he has returned to the drawing board. He must first convince Pakistan that peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan is in its national interest and pressing the Taliban for direct talks with Kabul is indispensable. It is understood that the option of coercion is still available and usable against Pakistan (so far unsuccessful) and against its beneficiary, the Taliban (so far unused). As Mattis failed in his coercive option, it is doubtful if Khalilzad can succeed. Still, Khalilzad has had three ‘good’ conversations with the Taliban; though they have steadfastly refused to talk to the Kabul delegation. The fourth round was postponed as the Taliban, at the behest of the Qataris, rejected Riyadh as the venue for the meeting. It will now happen as soon as Khalilzad is back from China, who, he hopes, will urge Pakistan to play the ball. Pakistan Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa is understood to have told Khalilzad that “we want peace and trade with India as well as LoC as the de facto border.” And, of course, “peace in Afghanistan”.

Afghanistan’s National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib, who was in New Delhi just before Raisina, was sceptical about a positive outcome from talks with the Taliban. He said that the Taliban is not a monolithic organisation and is fractured down the middle. He feels an intra-Afghan dialogue, which has not been held, must be a precursor to talks with the Taliban. According to him, different groups from many factions in the Taliban have so far been sent for talks in Moscow, Abu Dhabi and Qatar. “We’ve had contacts with the Taliban, including proximity talks at Abu Dhabi”, he added. Karzai, too, endorsed Mohib’s views but emphasised the centrality of Pakistan, adding “whatever the deal with Pakistan, it should not undermine Afghan sovereignty.” “The Taliban are Pashtuns, our people, and they have to be engaged in power-sharing” said Karzai. Most countries are in contact with the Taliban. India, which is a legitimate stakeholder, must engage the Taliban because they are Afghans, noted Karzai.

The Russians and Iranians are also keen that India open lines with the Taliban who will eventually be part of the Government. But India has been unable to sidestep hesitations of history, which have made its position rigid; though it has shown some flexibility recently. It is willing to support the peace process provided the Taliban adheres to red lines: Renunciation of violence, abiding by the Constitution and ensuring the peace process is owned, led and controlled by Afghans.

On their part, the Taliban has indicated that it is prepared for power-sharing but without elections. It wants most of the East and North East of Afghanistan given to it on a platter. Its writ runs in almost half the country. This plan is similar to the one suggested by Robert Blackwill of dividing Afghanistan in the middle. The Taliban also wants changes to the Constitution.

Further, it has sought a deadline for the withdrawal of foreign forces, lifting ban on the movement of its leaders and sanctions imposed on some of them. Given the barbarity of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, which was recognised by the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, some of its leaders are liable to be charged with crimes against humanity.

Karzai admitted that the Taliban attempted to destroy Afghanistan, its culture, history, institutions and role of women in society while trying to impose Sharia’h law. But some Afghans say that the Taliban has mended its ways (doubtful) and 2019 is not 1996. They no longer destroy schools and prevent girls from  going to school. Their biggest asset is control over large swathes of territory and retention of the capacity to execute multiple suicide attacks at will. In short, they enjoy on the ground the dominant position and advantage in balance of military power. This gives them a distinct edge in bargaining at the talks table.

It is the Americans who are in a hurry to withdraw, not the Taliban. They can outwait them indefinitely. Americans may have the watches but we have the time, this is what the Taliban has been saying for a long time. Trump would like to get most of his 14,000 soldiers back home before the next elections in 2020. Key questions, though, will remain: Who will guarantee the Taliban keeps its end of the bargain once foreign forces leave Afghanistan ? UN peacekeepers? A regional compact on non-interference as endorsed by SCO? Afghans reverting to neutrality? Or a grand bargain with Pakistan? Watch this space for answers.

(The writer is a retired Major General of the Indian Army and founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the revamped Integrated Defence Staff)

Writer: Ashok K Mehta

Courtesy: The Pioneer

After its independence from Pakistan in a 1971 war, the influx of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, spurred  periodic public uprisings, ensuing in Assam Accord in 1985. If the new Bill fails to dispel fears among Assamese, it will reopen old wounds

The Lok Sabha passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016 despite protest by the Opposition. Why this Bill has drawn so much controversy and opposition both from political parties and civil society groups within and outside North-East? The proposed Bill if passed in the Rajya Sabha will introduce an amendment in the original Citizenship Act of 1955. Once it becomes an act, it will make current illegal immigrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh belonging to the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities eligible for Indian citizenship after six years of residency instead of 11 years as stipulated mentioned in the Citizenship Act of 1955. This was done by the NDA Government after considering a 400-page Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) report that thoroughly studied the concerns of the locals after touring the entire State of Assam. However, the Government clarified that it will ensure protection of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord which categorically demands the constitutional safeguards of the Assamese people. The JPC report states that the State and the Central Government should formulate rules and regulations under Clause 6A of the Assam Accord to ensure that the very ethnic identity of the indigenous people is not threatened at any cost. The Opposition, including the Congress, highlighted that the NDA Government is trying to dilute Clause 5 of the Assam Accord which sets the cut-off date as March 24, 1971 to detect and deport foreigners. In the new Bill, the Government proposed the cut-off date as December 31, 1971 which will not be applicable to Bengali Hindu foreigners only. Further, it also says that considering these communities as persecuted ones, they will all be eligible for citizenship whoever has entered India till December 2014. This has actually opened a hornets’ nest across Assam and the North-East region. That’s why the call for total revision and recall of the Bill was echoed with much unhappiness as of date.

When the times and events demand, political leadership, irrespective of their different ideological shades, must see to it that the indigenous people do not have to lose their identity in Assam. Today, what Assam has witnessed is exemplified in the writings of Myron Weiner (1983), who said: “Among the most precarious political systems in the world are those that seek to hold together a society containing at least two ethnic groups, one of which has a bare or near majority…Some form of power sharing is usually necessary or at least an arrangement under which one group wields political power, but provides some degree of economic security to others.”

But such arrangements are temporary as it is affected by demographic changes both due to immigration and emigration, further accentuated by gradual population growth among different groups of people. This has eventually disrupted the political system of Assam leading to large-scale political violence and public unrest.

Instead of demonstrating grandiloquence, the leadership of the State BJP-led Government Sarbananda Sonowal should have convinced and conveyed the disastrous impact of such a legislation way ahead both to the Central leadership of the party and the Government. Schooled at the centre of regional politics and student activism, especially in the historic six-year long Assam Movement, Sonowal should have been well aware about the ethnocentric sentiment of the locals.

Now, as the Asom Gana Parisad (AGP) has moved out of the coalition in Assam, it does not help the BJP espouse the cause of regionalism intertwined with its pan-nationalist image. At last voters in Assam will have no “right choice” left. The AGP, the regional flag-bearer of Assam, is indirectly making difficult the BJP’s task to reach out to the indigenous communities. The outgoing AGP Ministers in the Sonowal Government came out in public saying that they will not continue as Ministers at the cost of the interests of the indigenous people of the State. Indeed, what the AGP leaders have done rightly serves the party’s future. Else, the party would have seriously damaged its electoral prospects and relevance in State politics that is deeply enmeshed with ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity.

What the Speaker of the Assam Assembly, Hitendranath Goswami, said after the Lok Sabha passed the controversial Bill highlights the tension in the State, “As a citizen, my conscience cannot support any Act which is unacceptable to the indigenous people of Assam and detrimental to the unity and fraternity of the people of Assam.” He reiterated that views of the “people” should be respected. Meanwhile, former MLA and AICC Secretary Rana Goswami has lambasted the Speaker by stating that he has failed to take side of the public and not taking any concrete steps to express his opposition to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill.

These events bring another pertinent question to the people: Will there be a danger for the survival of the North East Democratic Alliance (NEDA), a pet project of the BJP to muster support from like-minded political parties and groups to annihilate the Congress in the North-East? It seems, the NEDA will have to rethink its strategy to keep its continued alliance with the BJP. It is very clear that the regional parties across the North-East will really find it difficult to support the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, though it directly affects Assam only.

At a time, when the AGP has withdrawn support to the Sonowal Government, the National People’s Party (NPP) Government, another constituent of the NEDA, led by Conrad Sangma in Meghalaya, has voiced his discontent over the Citizenship Bill. Even the NPP was the first party to raise the banner of protest against the Bill last year by passing a Cabinet decision. Sangma said it was one of the most aggressive manners in which their decision was conveyed to the Centre. What is shocking is that the lone BJP MLA in the Sangma Government, AL Hek, has stood united in its opposition to the Citizenship Bill. Equally concerned, he stated that he remains committed to protecting the interest of the indigenous people of the region. Apart from Meghalaya and Assam, rest of the States of the North-East such as Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura too are affected by Bangladeshi migrants over the years. Politically, this move by the Centre to bring an amendment to the Citizenship Bill might be a smart move so as to create a “new vote bank” around the persecuted minorities, particularly the “Hindu Bengalis” coming from Bangladesh.

But, it does not augur well for North-East. Assam has been peaceful for over a decade, at least from terrorist-infested violence. But this Bill has once again given opportunity to numerous organisations such as the All Assam Students Union (AASU) and North East Students Organisation (NESO) to mobilise people. Though Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh is repeatedly assuring the country that Assam will not have to take the sole burden of the migrants, it is difficult to stop the inflow as once migrants settle at one place, it becomes next to impossible to move them out to other places.

One may recall that the people of the North-East, particularly the Assamese, are chauvinistic, parochial or xenophobic. The incessant influx of migrants from then East Pakistan, and now Bangladesh, since India’s Independence has seriously altered the demographic profile of all the North-East States. This has largely affected the population pattern of Assam. What Weiner echoed in the hey days of the Assam Movement in 1983 still holds true for the locals: “Large scale migration of illegal migrants from Bangladesh into the North-Eastern Indian State of Assam has disrupted a fragile political framework. The Assamese middle classes feared the loss of political control when the Central Government ordered elections after there was a marked increase in the number of migrants on the electoral rolls, while Assamese and tribal cultivators reacted against land encroachments.”

This had led to the birth of the Assam Movement which raised an alarm against the Bangladeshi migrants across the State. This was a defining moment for the Assamese people as the leadership of the movement called for an all-out protest to expel the foreigners from Assam. More significant aspect was that it was considered as one of the largest student-led Movement of the world. And this evoked much interest and attention from all quarters starting from the Central Government, media, and public. Indeed, this was one of the factors that had changed Assam’s perspective on Centre-State relations in subsequent years. Academic dialogues and deliberations that shaped various narratives in the post-Assam Movement years marked the emergence of such concepts like stepmotherly treatment, centre-periphery and India acting against itself in regard to the State. For late Indira Gandhi-led Government at the Centre, the Assam Movement was simply a “deterioration of law and order problem”, but for Assamese people, it was a question of life and death. Assam saw violence for years. After the assassination of Indira, when Rajiv Gandhi took over, he signed the historic Assam Accord with the AASU leadership on August 15, 1985, which has the very sensitive clauses 5 and 6. And this Clause 6 has envisaged that appropriate constitutional, legislative and administrative safeguards shall be provided to protect, preserve and promote the cultural, social and linguistic identity and heritage of the Assamese people.

This Citizenship Bill has created chaos across Assam and North-East. Let’s wait and watch how the NDA Governments, particularly the Sonowal Government, pull through this crisis. It’s a testing time for both these Governments and for the indigenous peoples of Assam.

(The writer is an expert on international affairs, and an independent researcher on contemporary issues)

Writer: Makhan Saikia

Courtesy: The Pioneer

A senior member of a major Pakistani political party, Syed Ali Raza Abidi, was assassinated by unidentified people (Na maloom afraad) who fired at his car outside his Karachi residence on December 25. Apart from being a successful restaurateur, he was a former Member of the National Assembly (MNA), and an ex-leader of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), which later broke into MQM-Pakistan.

In the 1980s, the MQM emerged as the political representative of the Mohajirs, those who migrated from India to Pakistan during Partition. As a Left-leaning party, it later dropped the word Mohajir from its name and changed it to Muttahida, to appeal to a wider base. But the party has constantly been in the crosshairs of Sindhi, Pashtun and Baloch populations as also the politicians in Karachi and Hyderabad — all of which are electoral catchment areas.

In 2017, Abidi had opposed the short-lived alliance between MQM-Pakistan and Pak Sarzameen Party (PSP) — both being splinter groups of the MQM. Moreover, removing the word MQM itself (embodying its history and legacy) had been a bone of contention among many loyal followers of the movement. (The ‘Pakistan murdabad’ slogan was taken as seditious by the Pakistani establishment and pressure ensued on all to distance themselves from MQM leader Altaf Hussain, who got banned from all media. Journalists, too, couldn’t use his name in their reportage.)

Abidi contested the general election this year from Karachi but suffered defeat at the hands of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf president and now Prime Minister, Imran Khan. In September, he resigned from MQM-Pakistan citing “personal reasons.” The Dawn reported that according to the Senior Superintendent Police, South Pir, Muhammad Shah, Abidi’s guard was not trained for the job entrusted to him.

“It’s hard to tell what the motive behind the attack is,” the SSP said. Further, “Whether it is a personal, political or religious issue, it is being investigated from all angles”, he said.

The MQM Coordination Committee (MQM-London) led by its convener Nadeem Ehsan and deputy convener, Qasim Ali Raza, saw red in this attack and called Abidi’s assassination a deep conspiracy by Pakistan’s military establishment to accelerate the genocidal crackdown in Karachi against the Mohajir/MQM movement. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s Information Minister, Fawwad Chaudhry, blamed Altaf Hussain to be behind the murder of Abidi. Wherever MQM is used without any qualifier, it means MQM-London,  the Altaf loyalists’ group.

Nadeem Ehsan added that this was not just sheer speculation but the plot of the military establishment had already been exposed. On the one hand, the military establishment is intimidating many high-profile political and non-political personalities, on the other, they have been removing security cover for those under serious threats. Slain Abidi was one such fateful. In a statement, the MQM Coordination Committee said that though the slain Abidi had parted ways with the movement, he was very vocal and never hesitated in expressing his views while making statements. He feared none. Hence, the military establishment couldn’t bear him. His murder is a deep conspiracy and tragedy.

Suspicions of MQM-London might not be without any reason. To explain it, I would digress from the topic and delve into the background of the issue.

Since 1986, nearly 20,000 MQM workers have been arrested. In the 1990s, the brutal ‘Operation Clean-up’ was launched by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif with an objective to “cleanse” Karachi city of “anti-social” elements. It circled around the controversy regarding Jinnahpur plan; MQM was accused of being anti-Pakistan and blamed for planning of a separate state, Jinnahpur.

Later, former President Pervez Musharraf normalised relations with the MQM. Crackdown against MQM began again in September 2013, as a part of the “minus three” formula (that has now been successfully implemented with all three — Nawaz Sharif, Asif Ali Zardari and Altaf Hussain — effectively sidelined from politics by Pakistan/the military establishment).

The successful implementation of the ‘minus three’ formula by the military establishment, coupled with a weaker Awami National Party (ANP) in Karachi paved the way for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) win in Karachi, including Imran Khan’s own seat. Following 2013, onwards crackdown had more than 130 enforced disappearances and 76 extra-judicial killings.

However, such efforts still could not crush MQM or Altaf Hussain, who remained beyond reach in London. The MQM workers were given a choice during this phase of the crackdown — to either go with the PSP or MQM — Pakistan or any other party. They were asked to distance themselves from Altaf. But this idea could not materialise. From time-to-time the shadow of Altaf propped up in the silhouette of his supporters, much to the chagrin of the establishment.

On December 9, which is observed as the Martyrs’ Day in remembrance of those who lost their lives in such a gory operation by Pakistan’s military establishment, a huge crowd turned out at Altaf’s call and pro-Altaf slogans were chanted. The crowd, that included women, were tear-gassed. They were, however, stopped from paying obeisance. All routes leading to the Jinnah Ground were blocked. Not a single individual was spared — thousands of Mohajir men, women and children were illegally arrested, tear-gassed, tortured and abducted.

The resident editor of The Nation in Karachi, Mansoor Khan, was also mistakenly arrested for he was passing by that area. Such was the indiscriminate nature of the arrests. Given the fact that many Mohajirs are staring at eviction from Government quarters in colonies, a huge crowd turned out in favour of Altaf. Citing a bad law and order situation, the establishment can use it as a ruse to bring in more forces into Karachi for a crackdown on them. Now, Karachi already has paramilitary rangers with a negligible number of Mohajirs in it, along with a horrible human rights’ record. It was probably this that Ehsan Nadeem hinted at. Only an impartial probe will make it clear so as to what actually transpired.

(The writer is an jndependent journalist working on cyber security and the geopolitics of India’s neighbourhood)

Writer: Aveek Sen

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Scuba-diving Santa brings holiday cheer to everyone

It’s a busy time for Santa Claus, but he’s making time to feed some fish in San Francisco. The California Academy of Sciences launched its holiday festivities Thursday by having a scuba diver dressed as St. Nick submerge into a coral reef exhibit while dozens of children watched from behind the glass. The “Scuba Santa” show runs through Christmas Day. It takes place during the morning feed at the Philippine Coral Reef tank at the San Francisco museum. Volunteer diver George Bell donned his Santa suit, from hat to coal black boots, and scuba gear for a recent feed and fielded visitors’ questions from inside the tank. The Philippine Coral Reef tank has thousands of reef fish representing about 100 species. People can watch Santa’s appearance online by webcam.

‘High-tech’ robot on TV was man in suit

Russian media say a contraption presented by Russian state television as a high-tech robot was in fact a man in a commercially available robot costume. The footage was shot at a high-tech show in the city of Yaroslavl that opened Tuesday, featuring “Boris the Robot.” Forum organizers used Boris to enliven the event, having him dance to a pop song.

But a crew for Russian state television apparently thought Boris was real, and used footage of him dancing and speaking as an example of Russian technological prowess. Online TJournal noted the lack of sensors, human-like movements and other discrepancies, and revealed that Boris was in fact a human clad in a costume sold under the name Alyosha by the Russian company Show Robots. (AP)

Worth the sting: Cuba’s scorpion pain remedy

Once a month for the last decade, Pepe Casanas, a 78-year-old Cuban farmer, has hunted down a scorpion to sting himself with, vowing that the venom wards off his rheumatism pains. His natural remedy is no longer seen as very unusual here.

Researchers in Cuba have found that the venom of the blue scorpion, whose scientific name is Rhopalurus junceus, endemic to the Caribbean island, appears to have anti-inflammatory and pain relief properties, and may be able to delay tumor growth in some cancer patients. While some oncologists abroad say more research is needed to be able to properly back up such a claim, Cuban pharmaceutical firm Labiofam has been using scorpion venom since 2011 to manufacture the homeopathic medicine Vidatox. The remedy has proven popular. Labiofam Business Director Carlos Alberto Delgado told Reuters sales were climbing 10 percent annually. Vidatox already sells in around 15 countries worldwide and is currently in talks with China to sell the remedy there. In Cuba, where tens of thousands of patients have been treated with Vidatox, each vial costs under a dollar. On the black market abroad it can cost hundred times that — retailers on Amazon.com are seen selling them for up to $140.

“I put the scorpion where I feel pain,” Casanas said while demonstrating his homemade pain relief with a scorpion that he found under a pile of debris on the patch of land he cultivates in Cuba’s western province of Pinar del Rio. After squeezing it long enough, it stung him and he winced. “It hurts for a while, but then it calms and goes and I don’t have any more pain,” he said. Casanas, a leathery-skinned former tobacco farmer who now primarily grows beans for his own consumption, said he sometimes keeps a scorpion under his straw hat like a lucky charm. It likes the shade and humidity, he says, so just curls up and sleeps.

(Reuters)

restaurant offering $500 gold brownie

A Los Angeles restaurant is taking dessert to new heights of decadence with a $500 brownie covered in 24-karat edible gold. Chef Jason Harley, owner of Baby J’s Burgers, said the opulent brownie is served in a humidor with a Monte Cristo cigar on the side.The brownie is coated in 24-karat gold and features glaze made with Johnnie Walker Blue Label scotch whisky. Harley previously made headlines in 2016 when his doughnut shop, Birdies, came out with a $100 doughnut similarly coated in edible gold.

(UPI)

Grinch on video driving through xmas display

An apparent Grinch was spotted on surveillance video plowing through a Christmas display outside a suburban Indianapolis home and tips are being sought to find the man. WRTV broadcast the video recorded Sunday night by a neighbor’s camera in Greenwood.

The video starts with a man getting out of a black SUV and then walking up to take a closer look at the front yard where Casie Arnold says her family had a 3.7-meter-tall inflatable snowman. The man gets back into the vehicle, backs up and drives through the family’s yard and over the decoration.

Arnold says they heard a pop while watching a Christmas movie. Tire tracks were in the yard. Arnold says she wonders if the driver was possibly a Grinch who doesn’t like Christmas.

Writer: Agencies

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Vladimir Putin is an archetypal political strongman who has always bent Russia to his will and wants the world to give in to it as well. Russian interference in the democratic process in the United States has plagued Donald Trump throughout his presidency and Russia has been alleged to have interfered in other elections such as the one in the United Kingdom that decided on Brexit as well as others. Russia’s military intervention in Syria has propped up the Bashar-al-Assad regime and cost countless lives and while the Western world shuns Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin-Salman, Putin considers him a friend. But strongmen have a soft underbelly of popular culture in their own nations that allows disparate voices. Singers, artists and even movie stars speak out using their celebrity status when others are cowed down, and in Russia those singers apparently challenging Putin are rappers. Like the artist Husky, who has been singing about the trouble that the man on the street faces, the high cost of living, rampant crime and political cronyism. So unsurprisingly, President Putin wants rap music to be ‘state guided’ that is, rappers can only perform at state-sanctioned events and avoid topics that might rile up the masses against their political overlords. This is a surprising turn of events even for Putin, who had invited a rap artist to perform at his inauguration. But while he projects strength abroad, he is worried about the influence of rappers among young Russians. Russia’s economy has been suffering thanks to decades-long Western sanctions that have slowed foreign investment into the country and the resultant inflations as well as persistent allegations of crony capitalism have done little to change perceptions despite his overwhelming win in the elections. But then again, Russian democracy is nowhere close to meeting the standards of the Western or even the Indian variety. That Putin allowed one of his daughters, Katerina Tikhonova, to appear on national television, almost certainly with his explicit approval, have  some Kremlin observers suspecting that he is grooming her as his potential political heir. Was that the final trigger for the stronger rap lyrics amounting to protest and might explain the current crackdown? Possibly.

Of course, cracking down on popular culture of any sort is a reaction of almost every strongman. This has been a precedent since time immemorial. There was a similar crackdown in India during the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi.  Before that, British colonialists cracked down on literature, pamphlets and plays. Writers and actors endured incarceration just as much as political leaders; they were just as important to the freedom struggle as politicians. By trying to bend rap music to his will, Putin might just drive it underground and while that might stifle Russian rap in  the short-term, it will come back to bite him or his successor in the long-term

Writer and Courtesy: The Pioneer