India and Korea not just share history, but also have immense shared business interests. Samsung plant in NCR is just a beginning, a lot more is to come…

The South Korean President Moon Jae-in paid a four-day visit to India in July (7-10) and held delegation-level talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other senior leaders on a wide range of bilateral, regional, and global issues of mutual interest with a view to further strengthen the special strategic partnership between the two countries. This was Moon’s first visit to India after he took over as the President of South Korea in 2017. It was one of the most productive visits to India by a foreign leader as the talks ended with a big-ticket investment announcement that would further deepen bilateral ties between Asia’s third and fourth largest economies, particularly in the economic sphere. Prime Minister Modi also took the opportunity to mention how India is concerned about North Korea’s nuclear weapon development programmes, and appreciated Moon’s initiative to address this issue. For India, Pyongyang’s nuclear link with Pakistan has remained a matter of concern for a long time.

A brief history

India-South Korea relations are not recent but for reasons other than economics, bilateral relations remained in a state of “strategic disconnect”. India’s policy of “non-alignment and economic autarchy” and the perceived closeness with the then Soviet Union were seen by the US and its allies, such as Japan and South Korea, with suspicion. Under the circumstances, there was little prospect for India-South Korea relations to develop. even the important role played by India in dispatching the 60th Parachute Field Military Ambulance Platoon — a mobile army surgical hospital that treated more than half of the wounded soldiers and an average of 250 to 300 civilians a day, during the UN operations in late 1951 following the Korean War — though remembered with gratitude, did not substantially help remove political barriers to forge a partnership that could have fetched mutual benefits.

There are civilisational linkages between the two countries too. It is popularly believed in South Korea that the legendary Korean King Suro married an Indian princess from Ayodhya centuries ago and mothered the Kim dynasty. Almost 80 per cent of the present generation bearing the name Kim traces their ancestry to the ancient dynasty. So, there is an emotional connection between the people of the two nations.

even Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore’s evocative poem that Korea will be the lamp bearer for the illumination of Asia could not translate to concrete construction of an India-South Korea partnership until the ideological gulf remained. The collapse of the Soviet Union and India’s Look east policy, rechristened now as Act east policy, dramatically altered the perceptions in reviewing India-South Korea bilateral ties in a different light in which economic, defence, and strategic dimensions were found enmeshed. The strategic history of India’s ties with this Northeast nation, that remained disjointed for almost four decades since the end of the Korean War, has been successfully recast now.

Put briefly, India-South Korea relations have developed in stages. The years since diplomatic ties were established in 1973 until early 1990 was the first stage or the ‘budding period’. Though some efforts were made by both, they could not realise the potentials because of their “inherent ideological incongruity and differences in their policy orientation”. While India adopted a socialist, secular, democratic government at home and pursued the policy of non-alignment of the third world in international affairs, South Korea remained tied in a security alliance with the US. So, both saw each other as belonging to different camps and “were blinded by the blinkers of the global block politics of the time”.

India’s choice of inward-looking import substitution model of development sharply contrasted with South Korea’s outward-looking export-oriented development path prevented the growth of economic ties between them. Though the diplomatic and other bilateral interactions continued smoothly, not much headway could be made in expanding the economic ties.

The second stage of the bilateral ties between 1991 and 2009 can be called the phase of ‘economic and commercial cooperation’. Both countries discovered a convergence of interests in many areas during this period. In the third stage, the bilateral relationship was elevated into a ‘strategic partnership’. This strategic partnership could be achieved because India’s of the convergence of India’s Look east Policy and Korea’s New Asia Diplomatic Initiative described as “policy rendezvous”. First, the bilateral relationship was catapulted into a higher gear when President Roh Myun-Hwan visited India in 2004 and a “long-term cooperative partnership” was established. This served as the bedrock for bilateral relations. This relationship was elevated to the level of strategic partnership when President Lee Myung-bak paid a historic visit to India in January 2010 as the chief guest of the Republic Day celebrations. The Comprehensive economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) signed in 2009 was also implemented and entered into force from January 1, 2010, thereby jump starting the dormant economic component of the bilateral ties. The CePA — which came into force on January 1, 2010 — was the first deal of its kind which India signed with an OECD country and South Korea with a BRIC nation.

Subsequently, several top level visits have taken place between the two countries: Former President Pratibha Patil’s visit in July 2011, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit in March 2012, and others. Defence and
Foreign Ministers from both countries have also visited, each time elevating the relationship to a higher level.

Significance of Moon’s visit

Against this background as the relationship evolved, Moon’s recent trip to India is another milestone in the bilateral ties. Firstly, the timing of the visit is significant as it coincided with the changes taking place with breathtaking rapidity in the geopolitical landscape of Northeast Asia. The architect of the changes is none other than President Moon whose peace overtures — which started with North Korea’s participation in the PyeongChang Winter Olympics and subsequently led to a summit meeting with Kim Jong-un on April 27, and later paved the way for the first ever summit between Kim and US President Donald Trump in Singapore on June 12. India-South Korea relations were elevated to ‘special strategic partnership’ after Modi visited South Korea in May 2015, seeking investments in many flagship programmes of the Government, including Skill India and Make in India. The South Korean Government earmarked a whopping $10 billion as “financing arrangement for infrastructure development in India”.

Moon’s dynamic leadership aside from his efforts to solve the nuclear dilemma of North Korea became demonstrably clear, or at least his intent, even during the presidential election campaign in 2017 wherein he pledged that he would elevate ties with India to the level of Korea’s relations with four major powers in and around the Korean Peninsula — China, Japan, Russia, and the US. This aside, he intended to craft India prominently in his “new Southern policy” and include the 10-member ASEAN group in its ambit. This is a significant departure from Korea’s traditional foreign policy and possibly could be, as some analysts suggested, a hedging strategy amid the US-China stand-off, coupled with the desire to forge a robust India-South Korea partnership in the interest of building peace and stability in the region. Though for India, South Korea is a valued partner, bilateral trade is below its potential. Bilateral trade in 2017 totaled $20 billion and investment has shown an upward trend. Both sides have pledged to increase it to $50 billion by 2030. There are about 300 Korean companies which have invested about $3 billion, employing about 40,000 workers. The only aberration in the bilateral ties seems to be that the POSCO project in Odisha did not take off despite that it was the single biggest foreign direct investment project to the tune of $12 billion, owing to land acquisition problems.

This 12-million capacity steel plant was floated in 2005 and POSCO had the patience to wait for close to a decade to see the project become functional. In the process, the company invested a lot of money in the social sector, including the CSR. But despite strong governmental support to the company to make the required land available for the steel project to be set up, the efforts failed and POSCO was forced to pull out of the project in 2017, after waiting for 12 long years as public resistance continued with no sign of ending.

Though POSCO was an unhappy experience for South Korea, this did not deter it to halt investment in India in other projects, such as by firms like Kia and Samsung, in recognition of the Indian market and the buying power of the urban middle class estimated to be to the tune of 350 million plus. Though the main driving force in the bilateral relations remains economic, the strategic dimension including defence cooperation is becoming equally important. The two sides are looking at defence hardware procurement and manufacture. India is looking for minesweepers for the Navy, and South Korea could be a possible source. India has also sourced artillery guns from South Korea and is looking to manufacture them in India under the Make in India programme. In this light, Moon’s India visit shall pave the way for expanding bilateral ties in multifarious dimensions, upgrading business ties to the level Korea has with China. Indeed, Moon has been pushing Korean majors to raise their investment in India.

The reason why the economic dimension in the partnership is significant can be deciphered from the address Moon made to the India-Korea Business Forum organised by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. It was attended by top management of the major business houses or large family-owned mega-conglomerates from Korea, such as Samsung, Hyundai, and LG. The three companies command large chunks of the export and domestic consumer and industrial markets in Korea. This was the second such event in less than five months. In February, Modi had addressed a mega delegation of 150-odd Korean companies, wherein he had exhorted the chaebols to further expand the $2.7 billion worth of investment mainly in the automobile and engineering sectors. Consumer products of Korean companies, such as Samsung and LG, are household names and therefore important players in the Indian consumer market. In the automobile sector, Hyundai competes equally with Japanese products, such as Toyota, Honda, and Mitsubishi.

There are some trade and tariff issues that need to be sorted out. For example, India seeks zero duty on items such as sesame and motor parts. Korea is reluctant to accede to this request. South Korea imports 630 per cent duty on Indian sesame, while imports 24,000 tonnes a year from China at zero duty, and therefore, India’s request is legitimate. Korea feels that opening tariff lines to a country ensures zero custom duty to importers of the country to which it is opened. The duty is applicable for products under those tariff lines. From the strategic perspective, the importance of South Korea in India’s Indo-Pacific strategy came out clear in Modi’s keynote address at the Shangri-La Dialogue on June 1, 2018, when he mentioned South Korea was an important component of the Act east policy.

During Modi’s visit to South Korea in 2015, the two sides sought amendment to the bilateral Air Services Agreement to enhance flight connectivity covering more cities. As Korean business in Indian cities expands, Korea would be interested in increasing direct flights from the existing six in a week. That time, an MoU was inked on cooperation in audio-visual co-production, paving the way for co-production of films, animation and broadcasting programmes. This time during Moon’s visit, five MoUs in the field of science and technology were signed. Science and Technology Minister Harshvardhan and his Korean counterpart You Young Min signed three MoUs on Programme of Cooperation 2018-21, Establishment of Future Strategy Group and Cooperation in Bio-technology and Bio-economy. Two other MoUs were signed between the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and South Korean National Research Council for Science and Technology and IIT Mumbai and Korea Institute of Science and Technology, to further accelerate future-oriented cooperation.

During his visit, Moon inaugurated a Samsung manufacturing unit, the largest in the world, in Noida in which the company has invested $760 million, demonstrating the trust and business confidence in Indian market despite the unhappy experience of POSCO. This is going to be the world’s largest mobile phone manufacturing facility, touting Modi’s pet Make in India to propel India to become the world’s second-largest manufacturer of mobile phones as the number of factories soared to 120 from just two, four years ago. Apart from creating four lakh direct jobs, 30 per cent of the phones manufactured at the factory — built at a cost of Rs 5,000 crore — will be exported to the Middle east and Africa. India was already the R&D hub for Samsung, now it will be a manufacturing base too.

Would India be the next China for South Korea, as claimed by Korea’s Trade Minister Kim Hyun-chong? It may be recalled when South Korea deployed the THAAD US missile defense system in 2017, a decision taken by Moon’s predecessor, a diplomatic row broke out between South Korea and China as the latter felt that THAAD breached into China’s security. China adopted a series of economic retaliatory measures against Korean products, thereby severely affecting the Korean economy. South Korea is yet to recover from this. Moon now seeks to enhance economic and trade relations with the ASEAN and India, thus announcing his southern policy.

Moon’s strategy is laudable but not without difficulties. Many bilateral economic issues concerning trade and tariff need to be sorted out. Moreover, if Moon targets the ASEAN grouping as a single package, that would be difficult, as a strategy that fits all countries may not be possible as the characteristics of each country could be different. For example, if South Korea wants to expand the market presence of its car makers in Indonesia — the largest car market in Southeast Asia where Japanese vehicles enjoy 98.6 per cent market share, but the Korean cars take up only about 0.1 per cent — the challenge could be huge. on the other hand, India holds the greatest potential for South Korea and has the least risk, which is why India is a priority destination for Korean businesses. The absence of any sensitive issue, either historical or geographical, also works in India’s favour to be a preferred partner for South Korea. The Moon Government has, therefore, prioritised India to deepen and strengthen multidimensional relations.

With its population expected to reach 1.5 billion in 2030, India has the potential to emerge as the world’s single largest market. In view of this, any nation doing business with another country may find it irresistible to overlook India to be a partner in pursuit of economic prosperity. Moon is aware that India is eyeing the tag of the world’s third largest economy by 2030, after overtaking France as the sixth largest economy and coming close to the UK, which is at the fifth place. Indian economy is at the take-off stage and is expected to be the world’s third largest by 2030 with the GDP worth $10 trillion. This means India is aiming to overtake the UK, Japan, and Germany by 2030, to be behind only the US and China. As far as doing business is concerned, India presents tempting prospects for any country, and South Korea is well aware of this.

Rajaram Panda: Writer is former Senior Fellow at the IDSA, was until recently ICCR Chair Professor at Reitaku University, Japan. rajaram.panda@gmail.com I Courtesy: The Pioneer

New Delhi needs to clearly understand that Imran Khan, hoisted to power by the Pakistan Army, will do what the Generals ask him to, particularly when it comes to Kashmir

Fatima Bhutto cites two horrific incidents in a searing piece titled, ‘Imran Khan is only a player in the circus run by Pakistan’s military’ in The Guardian of July 24, 2018. On July 17, supporters of his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), “tied a donkey to a pole and punched its face till its jaw broke, ripped open its nostrils, and drove a car into its body, leaving the animal to collapse, having been beaten to an inch of its life. Before they left, they wrote ‘Nawaz’ (the name of the former prime minister) into its flesh, seemingly inspired by their leader, Imran Khan, who has taunted Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) workers as ghadday or donkeys. The donkey was rescued by the ACF Animal Rescue Team, a private organization, who noted that, even days later, it could not stand up on its own because of the ferocity of its torture. It soon succumbed to its injuries, an innocent creature beaten to death for entertainment.”

Bhutto further states in the article that another donkey was mercilessly attacked the day after. In her words, “the skin on its face was ripped off, the flesh on its forehead was ripped apart till all that remained between its eyes was a pulpy, bloody hole. The RCF did not say whether the animal was a victim of the same party but, in a landscape of venomous online trolling, people are afraid to say very much these days.”

One had expected Pakistan’s playboy cricketing icon, now set to become the Prime Minister, to at least come out with a strident, public condemnation of the savage torture of the two donkeys and remove the culprits from his party. There is no indication that he has done either or both. Any argument that compassion for animals, and anger over cruelty to them, are personal attributes and have nothing to do with governance will not wash. Compassion and sensitivity to cruelty are indivisible. The overwhelming majority of those who are kind to animals are also kind to humans and vice-versa. Compassion for the poor and suffering and anger over cruel suppression of the rights of people and legitimate, peaceful protest, is central both to the ethos of a liberal, democratic society, and the framing of policies that define a just and fair Government. Compassion for trees — sentient living beings — is important to the protection of forests, which is a critical component of efforts to save the environment. Not surprisingly, Ar-ticle 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India, states in the context of the Fundamental Duties of citizens, “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.”

If Imran Khan has not acted severely against those who have savagely tortured the two donkeys, then the fact underlines the allegation by many that he is utterly insensitive person who is not moved to anger by savage, wanton cruelty. The incident provides an equally damning commentary on his followers’ characters. A large section of them clearly comprises the dregs of Pakistan’s society. The question is: How does this country deal with a person like him, particularly given the kind of supporters he has?

While the dregs have played a significant role in Imran Khan’s rise to power the others who have contributed include members of Pakistan’s urban middle class with their hope for a cleaner politics and better governance, fundamentalist Islamist organisations to which he has been pandering over the years, and pious Muslim moved by the growing religiosity that he has been publicly displaying.

The enabling, over-arching support has, of course, been the Army which did everything it could to ensure PTI’s victory. The process began long before the elections. The Army manipulated the movement launched by three fundamentalist organisations — Tehreek-i-Labaik Pakistan, Tehreek-i-Khatm-i-Nabuwwat and Sunni Tehreek Pakistan — demanding the dismissal of Pakistan’s Law Minister, Jahid Hamid, holding him responsible for alleged changes in Pakistan’s Election Act 2017 altering the Khatm-i-Nabuwwat (Finality of Prophethood) oath compulsory for electoral candidates. They were not moved by the Governments attribution of the change to a “clerical error” and amendment of the Act to remove it. Finally, the Government had to surrender following a three-week siege of Islamabad and other cities; Hamid resigned on November 27, 2018. The Army’s role became clear when, despite being ordered by the Interior Ministry to restore law and order, the Army chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, suggested peaceful handling of the protestors. After Hamid’s resignation, the Labaik chief, Khadim Hussain Rizvi, thanked General Bajwa’s for his help in ending the stand-off.

Earlier, the Army had played a dubious role in relation to the movement accompanying the “Azadi March” which lasted from August 14 to December 17, 2014. The march was a synchronized campaign, albeit with different agendas, by Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf and Muhammad Tariq-ul-Qadri’s Pakistan Awami Tehreek, for the removal of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. It led to much violence before Imran Khan called it off on December 17, 2014, following Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan’s attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar on December 16, which had caused 141 deaths, 132 of which were of school children. The Army’s role had become clear almost at the very beginning of the march when it had issued a statement calling for restraint by the police. There was no condemnation of the agitation which sought to remove an elected prime minister, whose party, the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) had won 190 of the 342 seats in Pakistan’s parliament in the 2013 General Elections, through street upheavals.

As the July 25 parliamentary elections approached, a number of measures like Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification from holding political office, his and his daughter’s arrest, intimidation of his party’s candidates into not contesting or changing sides, and massive, intimidatory Army presence on election day, were part of an all-out effort to defeat PML-N and ensure Imran Khan’s victory.

Imran, who, in 2014, demanded Nawaz Sharif’s resignation on the ground that the latter had become Prime Minister by wholesale rigging of the 2013 elections, has now become Prime Minister on the basis of an election widely considered rigged. While this, the underlying irony is engaging, critically important for India is that he has been put in office by the Pakistan Army and will do its bidding on all issues, particularly ties with India and Kashmir.

(The writer is Consultant Editor, The Pioneer, and an author)

Write: Hiranmay Karlekar

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The ‘friendship pillar’ placed in Lhasa reads: Tibetans to be happy in the land of Tibet and Chinese in the land of China. The authorities seemed in China seems to have forgotten to provide a translation of what it reads.

In 821 AD, Tibet’s great emperor, Tritsuk Detsen and his Chinese counterpart entered into an agreement “seeking in their far-reaching wisdom to prevent all causes of harm to the welfare of their countries now or in the future.”

The Peace Treaty signed between Tibet and China was carved in Tibetan and Chinese language on a stone pillar which was placed in front of the Jokhang Cathedral in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital. A few years ago, the Chinese decided to restore the pillar describing the grand alliance; the communist authorities, however, forgot to give the translation of the ‘friendship’ pillar.

Last week, when the Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited Lhasa, he walked down to the stone pillar and affirmed that the monument was a model for unity between the Tibetans and the Chinese. Li probably did not read the Treaty: “Tibet and China shall abide by the frontiers of which they are now in occupation. All to the east is the country of Great China; and all to the west is, without question, the country of Great Tibet. Henceforth on neither side shall there be waging of war nor seizing of territory. If any person incurs suspicion, he shall be arrested. …Tibetans shall be happy in the land of Tibet, and Chinese in the land of China. Even the frontier guards shall have no anxiety, nor fear.”

This was forgotten when the communist troops walked into Tibet in October 1950. Today, Tibet is an ‘unalienable’ part of China (and the frontier guards have shifted to the Indian border). The ‘unalienable’ part was highlighted by Premier Li during his visit. It is the art of rewriting history with Chinese characteristics.

Interestingly, it was the first ever visit of a Chinese Premier to the Roof of the World. It is usually the Chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, also a Member of the all-powerful Standing Committee of the Politburo (presently Wang Yang) who visits Tibet, not the Premier. The head of the United Front Work Department also regularly ‘inspects’ the Roof of the World. One reason for this unexpected change might be that President Xi Jinping (who was then travelling in Africa) finally tries to delegate some of his responsibilities to Li Keqiang; rumors to this effect have recently been circulating in China.

The coverage of the visit is another sign that all is not smooth in the Middle Kingdom.

Usually such an important visit would be announced after the VVIP is back in Beijing; only then reports would appear in Chinese and later the English version would come out, tailored for the foreign public. This time, it was rather chaotic; some English websites broke the news on the first day of the visit, while Xinhua kept mum till Li was back in Beijing. Are there two voices of China?

Remember in March, after the legislative and consultative meetings, China decided to unify its voice. The State Council announced that the Government had formed the world’s largest media group called Voice of China, combining the existing China Central Television, China National Radio, and China Radio International under one unified umbrella and name. It was the responsibility of the publicity (ex-propaganda) department to manage it. But in the case of Li Keqiang’s visit to Tibet, China spoke incoherently. While the media affiliated to the State Council covered it nearly ‘live’; Xinhua waited for Li’s return to Beijing to report.

What were the visit’s highlights?

The atheist Premier went to the Jokhang Cathedral in Lhasa, he told some monks in attendance that he hoped that “Tibetan religious patriots could learn from the eminent monks in history, and devote themselves to maintaining the unity of the state, ethnic solidarity, a harmonious society and smooth religious affairs.”

All the monks are obviously not good ‘patriots’, a fact which worries Beijing. Li also urged “religious circles to continue to make contributions in safeguarding national unity and promoting ethnic solidarity as well as social harmony.”

China Tibet Online had reported earlier that Li Keqiang visited Southern Tibet on July 25. Apparently, Li went directly to Nyingchi prefecture, bordering Arunachal Pradesh where he visited a village in Mailing County; this is a new village inhabited by Monpas, who have been ‘relocated from impoverished areas’, located next door. Metok County is situated on the Yarlung Tsangpo (Brahmaputra), north of Upper Siang district of Arunachal Pradesh.

Li went to a newly-built house of a Tibetan named Kunsang; he sat with the ‘migrant’ family and talked to the six members of the household about their daily life. Kunsang told Li that his family moved from Metok County, where “road travel is fairly difficult”. This is rather surprising considering that since 2013, when a tunnel was opened, the Chinese propaganda has been stressing the ‘changes’ in Metok, principally mentioning better communications. So why move people to a nearby County, if the situation had improved so much in the first place?

Li was said to have been really pleased “to see that the villagers have cast off poverty through the relocation programme and lived a prosperous life.” The Premier wished the family an even more prosperous life in the future.

It is difficult to understand why this family was ‘shifted’ from Metok to Mainling County in the first place. Were they creating problems for the Chinese government near the Indian border? It is possible. Metok, like several other places on the border, has been the focus of very generous investments from the Central Government, the local Government as well as different Provincial Governments. It is doubtful if ‘poverty alleviation’ was the reason for this transfer of population.

For the Tibetans, it should be worrying, considering that the Premier’s visit takes place just days before the yearly summer retreat of the party’s top bosses in Beidaihe, which is always the occasion to discuss ‘new’ policies. Will reallocation of Tibetans within Tibet (like it is happening in Xinjiang) from border areas be discussed?

Incidentally, Li met with the hard-core Old Guard: Phakpala, Raidi, Jampa Phuntsok, Legchok and Passang, who served in Tibet for decades; he praised their past work for the ‘stability’ of Tibet.

Has Beijing decided to return to ‘pure’ communist policies of the old days, symbolised by these cadres? It is quite frightening.

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

Writer:  Claude Arpi

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Konversations with Kapil
Twitter: @kk_OEG

26/11/2008 has gone in history as the day the whole of India, and the wider world, awoke to the constant cross-border terrorism that India has had to face for decades. Some ten terrorists from Lashkar-e-Taiba, an Islamic terrorist organisation based in Pakistan, carried out a series of 12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks in Mumbai that went on for four days. In the trail of this unwarranted terrorist attack on India, it left 164 people dead with some 308 more who were wounded.

Whilst most of the attacks were of public buildings frequented by a diversity of people, one people in particular had been singled out for their faith. This was at Nariman House. Locally also known as Chabad House which is a Jewish Centre. Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife Rivka Holtzberg, who was six months pregnant at the time, were murdered with four other hostages. Security forces who freed the Chabad House from this terrorist attack also lost lives and many were injured.

Photo of Chabad House the day after the attack.

In 2010 January I was honoured to accompany HRH Prince Michael of Kent on our visit to the Chabad to witness, and to hear, first-hand accounts of what actually transpired. It was also a clear sign of our support for the Jewish Community in Mumbai, and to the victims who suffered so greatly during that attack.

Photo: HRH Prince Michael of Kent being informed of the impact of the attack by Rabbi Avraham Berkowitz of the Mumbai Relief Fund. With me on the right.

I present this as my starting position since it crystallises for me the immoral attack that both Hindus and Jews have had to endure for decades. Hindus and Jews have lived side by side with our Muslim brothers and sisters for a long time. However, this resurgence of the militant Islamic ideology that has spread throughout the world now threatens all of us yet again. Our two communities are the most in danger from these terrorists since they view our communities as a direct threat. The Jewish community have endured more than a millennia of savagery from it’s neighbours, and almost always on grounds of faith and race. In similar vein, Hindus have endured more than a thousand years of invaders and their persecution. With this amount of murderous intent and persecution, both the Jews and the Hindus have survived. Once again, these two communities are beginning to rise up and rise above their historical disadvantage and are now leading the way in the world in all spheres of life. The values imbibed within these two communities of truth, righteousness, peace and love for the whole of humanity is a message that the world needs at this most critical juncture in time.

However, whereas in the past the attacks upon us were primarily physical, in the 21st Century we see these attacks being supplemented with the dark art of social media, political coercion and the wholesale distribution of militant Islam by way of the Petro dollar. In the last few years even the most ardent supporters of these extremist regimes have finally realised that this is now an unsustainable model that must be deconstructed if the world is to enter this new millennium with any hope of peace for the whole of humanity. Duplicity that has been the cornerstone of the work of the United Nations now has to be challenged. It is time that right-minded people, leaders with a moral and ethical spine, and the independent institutions come out and challenge the bigots on the world stage who thrive on terror and extremism. Silence is no longer an option. As Albert Einstein said rightly before, “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it”. Couple that with the words of the Mahatma, “When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it–always”. And then we have the famous quote from Edmund Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. Quotations are great, and these quotations are so often quoted by the very same people who hide their true duplicitous nature with a smile in the public arena. We the silent majority must now find our voice. Social media is great, but it has been taken over by the extremists from the far left and the far right. Increasingly the threat is in fact from the far left who have moved so far to the left, that they have morphed into the fascists of the 21st Century. Under the cloak of equality and diversity, they hoodwink the masses with their grotesque outrage at anything and everything. They have in fact become a pack of ‘mischief’ who are intent in causing as much mischief as they can under the camouflage of premeditated anarchy. The question arises, who is funding this global phenomenon? After all, does anyone seriously believe that it ‘just’ happens? Surely one cannot be that deluded!

In this era of orchestrated chaos and white noise, is it any wonder that we now have at the same time on the world stage, leaders like President Trump, PM Modi and PM Netanyahu. You must not confuse right of centre and nationalist leaders with the ‘far-right’. Everyone abhors the ‘far-right’ and rightly so. However, in the world the vast majority of the silent voters are beginning to find their voice by voting in politicians and leaders who are right of centre and those who wish to protect the people and the nation. I have listed three major leaders, but you are welcome to traverse the globe, continent by continent and you will soon see the dynamics at play. However, in countries like France, Greece, Italy, Spain and Poland we have seen a move whereby the frustrations of many people are now leading them to support far-right parties that are beginning to make inroads into mainstream politics. For Europe at least, the warning signs cannot be clearer or louder. Ignore them, as in the past, at your peril. Don’t be too surprised to see the opposite in some countries where far-left and socialists come into power, but their own agenda of governance by anarchy.

There are but two options for the world order. Either there is a global re-alignment which ensures that duplicity over terror and extremism, whether it comes from a religious ideology or from a political ideology, is tackled head on and put in check. Or there will be a violent reaction from the grass roots that will overwhelm many of the nations. We witness this churning in the European Union at present. Its leaders blinded by their own self gratification and the need to cling on to power by gerrymandering the social fabric of voters. However, the people at the grass roots are increasingly losing their patience. We have seen the eruption of riots in many of these countries. In some countries, no go areas have been created such that even the local Police are too frightened to patrol. The politicians and many of the intuitions with vested interested can ignore the people, but at their peril. And who are the people who will suffer greatly? Yes, it will be us the ethnic minorities. We will all be labelled under the same banner, we will all be attacked, and we will all pay a price for the crimes of the few. The PC Brigade that appears to champion our cause are in fact the very reason for our demise. They are, for all intents and purposes, the new imperial masters who have conquered the art of being your friends and having the capacity to brain wash our communities into believing that they have our interest at heart. Nothing can be further from the truth. Their aim is to usher in the most extremes of a socialist order where any form of challenge or disobedience will be met with wholesale bullying, harassment and abuse. We witness this already on social media and in how our streets are trampled on, at will, with protest after protest. They want to turn society into a paradise for anarchy, the arena in which they reign supreme.

So folks, be warned. I titled this piece for the Hindus and for the Jews. However, that which attacks these two communities today will also have the capacity to destroy the peace of the world tomorrow. Be warned, we allowed far right monsters to reap havoc with devasting consequences. We also allowed the far-left dictators space and they murdered millions for their ideology. The political elite of yesteryears are now out of touch with the people they claim to represent. Increasingly one is left with the view that the PC brigade’s dictum: ‘We do not need to be tolerant; you need to be tolerant to our intolerance’, is fast becoming the one and only commandment of the political left and of the socialist fraternity.

On the world stage we see how the United Nations has been hijacked by the extremist. They will pass Anti-Israel (Gaza related normally) and Anti-India resolutions (Kashmir related normally) for fun. Am I surprised when the United States recently declared that they were opting out of the United Nations Human Rights Council. I am surprised frankly that many other leading countries, including India and the UK, have not followed suit. If a nation appeases the extremists agenda at the UN in the hope for world peace, then they are sadly mistaken. Appeasement is the required first step for these agents of doom to systematically dismantle all international structures that have hitherto kept them in check. On the international plane the only two countries who have a sound moral and ethical compass that has passed the test of many millennia are India and Israel. Increasingly I am seeing that maybe the only protection this world has or will have is for these two bastions of humanity to forge a partnership to take on the extremists wherever they might be, and in whatever form they hide. Countries like the United States, and I hope the United Kingdom, will have to lend support overtly. The stakes are too high, and we cannot be complacent this time round.

So I leave you with one thought, that from Martin Luther King Jr, ‘He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it’.

Note about the writer: Kapil Dudakia is a seasoned businessman and a leading thought provoking writer from the UK. His command of detail and his ability to see issues and events years before they come to fruition is worthy of note. He has advised very senior politicians on a variety of issues. Being independent of thought, he does not compromise, nor does he bow to pressures to become politically correct. He understands the East, and he lives in the West. A unique grasp of perspectives that is often food for thoughts for all of us.

In the present situation, the conflicts in Afghanistan calls for a bottom-up approach to attain peace. A number of stakeholders will need to place high regard in standard, values, including diversity and human rights.

In the recently concluded NATO summit, Afghanistan has yet again surfaced as the boiling pot that has witnessed offbeat power play in the last few years. As conflict in the region continues to escalate — witnessing violence orchestrated by the internal disjunctions between the Taliban and the Islamic State (IS) that has larger repercussion on global security — countries far-flung from Afghanistan seem to be rattled by violent premonitions.

It is pertinent to note that Afghanistan has transformed not just as a sight for peace-building exercise but also as a major focal point for countries to establish their prowess by elevating global status, and in doing so, engage in newer bandwagoning and balancing techniques. It is, therefore, essential to scrutinise some of the unusual actors involved in the conflict and thereby lay down a newer perspective to look at conflict settlement in the rapidly enveloping humanitarian crisis in the country.

Who are the peacemakers?

While the US’ presence in Afghanistan is barely unaccounted for, forthcoming countries, such as Uzbekistan and Gulf countries, are scrambling for strategic footprint.  The neighbourhood is no less pummelled by the Afghan bug. Following a slow weeding out of forces in Syria and Iraq, the US Air Force has amplified its deployment significantly in Afghanistan,  recognising it as the theatre of violence in today’s date.

Two major conclusions emerge from their heightened strategic engagement: First, the tangible implications in the form of economic and trade opportunities that are seen as a crucial element for the respective country’s national interest. And second, the subjective aspect of status and the larger narrative behind national security. As status elevation accorded to the peace-maker is a major objective for big players, including China, the US, India, and the European nations, the Afghan conflict — oozing from the turbulence designed by the Taliban and IS, compounded by the under resourced Government forces to fight independently — has brought all the above on their toes.

While traditionally, Afghanistan has been engulfed in big power politics, including the regional hegemons — India and China — tussling for greater global recognition, the Afghan conflict seems to have attracted newer players in the large scale. Tashkent recently announced hosting a peace dialogue between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, advancing on the decade-long effort in establishing peace in the region. Both at the domestic and international level, involvement in the Afghan conflict is slated to complement progressively the former Soviet Republic’s image.

In a conference previously, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev announced, “We stand ready to create all necessary conditions, at any stage of the peace process, to arrange on the territory of Uzbekistan direct talks between the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban movement”.

Equally strategic has been the involvement of regional actors, such as Turkey. The only Muslim country to hold a membership of NATO, Turkey has been rather consistent with its Afghan policy. It seems since antiquity, Turkey has held peace-building in Afghanistan as a core element of its foreign policy outreach.

Early this year, Turkey held discussions with officials from Taliban’s Qatar office on forwarding a practical resolution to the Afghan conflict. This was complemented with Turkey’s attempt to strike a balance between its relationship with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

While the Afghan Government’s growing dissention with Pakistan has further deteriorated the former’s negotiation abilities with groups such as the Haqanni network and the Taliban, Turkey has entered the scenario as a befitting third-party mediator,  differing with the US on launching military strikes against the Taliban which would incur larger humanitarian loss. Recently, Turkey held talks with Pakistan’s former Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif to come at a resolution to the Afghan conflict. To what extent this would bear fruitful results for major stakeholders as well as the Afghan Government is contestable, owing to Pakistan’s intentions, which are more inclined towards ensuring a stronghold in Afghan functioning than on establishing peace.

Nevertheless, Turkey emerges as an indispensable actor in the peace process, also owing to the role it has played in bringing the ousted Vice President Dustom back into the picture, who has prominent allies in northern Afghanistan. In terms of humanitarian aid as well, the Turkish Government has made significant investment of around one billion dollar in economic development projects that have strengthened Afghanistan’s infrastructure and education systems.

Bereft of the neighbourhood of Afghanistan, the involvement of Asian giants, including Australia, has been eye-catching. Sydney’s concerns about the conflict in Afghanistan adequately feeds into its agreement to increase troops in Afghanistan in the NATO summit recently. Last year over a meeting with President Ghani, Australian Prime Minister Turnbull conceded, “Since 2001, we have supported Afghanistan in its efforts to tackle terrorism and build a stronger, more stable and resilient nation.”

Beyond peace and stability?

As countries across continents are eager to engage in peace-building efforts, heightening their international presence in the global domain, the question of when peace and what would that entail for the people of Afghanistan is far from the discussion table. Perversely, the United Nations reported that the civilians reached a record high in the first six months of this year. According to reports, some 1,692 fatalities were recorded, with militant attacks and suicide bombs being the leading cause of death. In this scenario, the approach of exhaustive military attack seems largely unnerving and fatal, to say the least. Instead, bringing the dissenting fraction to the table ought to be the focus for peacemakers.

Equally worthy is the role of the locals, including women, concerns of whom have often been ignored in the dominant narrative of peace making. According to the feminist approach to conflict resolution, inclusive dialogues that ensure adequate representation and take into consideration local factors of the region, are the foundational element of peace-building. And this immaculately applies to the prevailing scenario in Afghanistan that qualifies as a tough case for major stakeholders involved. It has been a Herculean task, even after increasing deployments in the region, to maintain ceasefire for longer than a week at a go.

Furthermore, what makes the feminist approach appealing is the post-conflict techniques that would preferably ensure a stable framework of governance and peace in the domestic realm. The Afghan conflict, in the present state, necessitates a bottom-up approach to attain peace whereby multiple stakeholders need to place high regard in universal values of human rights and diversity. The national security concerns or status perceptions or economic trade-offs will carry substantial value. However, at the core remains the underlining values and the procedural aspects that guide peacebuilding.

And in this scenario, the universal values, instead of restricted understanding of national interest, ought to be the cornerstone for the institutional arrangement laden with the role of peace-building and conflict resolution.

(The writer is Senior Analyst, Global Risk Insights)

Writer: Baisali Mohanty

Courtesy: The Pioneer

In another round of elections which will held on 25th July, the Mullah Nexus is set to win in Pakistan. Again, the Pakistani Government will be ill-equipped to deal with the nation’s challenges.

As Pakistan goes to polls tomorrow (July 25), it appears that the blurring lines between mufti and mullah will converge further, to the detriment of its struggling democracy. The economic crisis, aggravated by unserviceable debts from infrastructure related to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, could trigger a complete meltdown, which a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (top priority of the new regime) may not be able to avert.

Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf (PTI) leader Imran Khan, for whom the military ‘deep state’ has reportedly ‘fixed’ the pitch, is unequal to the challenges of a failing currency, water and power shortages, Pashtun resurgence, and continuing violence by terrorists and Baloch insurgents. The military, equally unqualified to manage the crises, has suppressed all voices in favour of the PTI, Hafez Saeed’s Milli Muslim League (contesting under the banner of Allah-o-Akbar Tehrik) and other creations, including the Balochistan Awami Party.

Dawn (July 21) has reported Islamabad High Court judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui alleging that the Inter-Services Intelligence is “manipulating judicial proceedings” and has asked the Chief Justice to ensure that Nawaz Sharif and his daughter Maryam Nawaz remain behind the bars throughout the elections. Addressing the Rawalpindi District Bar Association, the judge said, “Their personnel get benches formed at their will”. He alleged that the Chief Justice was urged not to include him (Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui) on the Bench hearing the Sharifs’ appeals. Siddiqui was allegedly told that cases pending against him before the Supreme Judicial Council would be quashed and he would be made Chief Justice of the High Court by September.

Another disturbing development is the Ahmadiyya (167,505 voters) decision to boycott the elections due to persisting discrimination. The current voter list also omits Jewish voters (809 in 2013), for reasons unknown. Ahmadiyya woes began when Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (1971-77) succumbed to radical clerics and declared Ahmadis a non-Muslim religious minority (Amendment No II of the Constitution). Under Gen Zia-ul-Haq’s 8th Amendment, electoral lists were prepared for different religious groups. However, under Western pressure, Gen Pervez Musharraf reintroduced the joint voter list for all barring Ahmadis (Conduct of General Elections (Second Amendment) Order, 2002). Under Article 7C, Muslim voters were required to sign a declaration of belief in the unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad; those who refused were put on a supplementary list of voters in the same electoral area as non-Muslims.

The Nawaz Sharif Government, in the Elections (Amendment) Bill 2017, tried to modify the clause regarding finality of Prophethood, but was forced to restore the Khatm-i-Nabuwwat laws to their original form after an outcry. Pushed to a separate voter list that makes their identities and addresses public and makes them vulnerable to extremist attacks, Ahmadis opted for boycott, something they have done for nearly four decades.

Unsurprisingly, observers are questioning the conduct of the polls. Election observers from the European Union are unhappy that their visas and Government accreditations were delayed for weeks, giving them only few days on the ground before polling, whereas long-term observers earlier got five to six weeks on the ground. Journalists have complained of pressure to toe the Army’s line; those deviating have suffered. In March, Pakistan’s top private news channel, Geo News, was taken off the air. Anchor Talat Hussain tweeted that despite the massive rallies (of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz), news media “have been told to stay free of fact”; “A spineless media industry has obliged”; and “This country is in the grip of martial law.” Geo News returned after weeks of negotiations with the military whereby its executives reportedly agreed to curb criticism of the Army and judiciary.

Dawn reported disruption in its sales networks after publishing a long interview with Nawaz Sharif in May. The newspaper said the restrictions were “deeply alarming and should concern all free-thinking and democratic citizens of the country.” The elections have also been marred by harassment and arrest of workers of some parties; some suffered assassination attempts and terrorist attacks, including a suicide bomb that killed 149 people at a rally in Mastung, Balochistan (July 13, 2018).

Amidst growing concerns about the treatment meted out to the PML-N, Pakistan People’s Party and Awami National Party, the Pakistan Human Rights Commission, an NGO, said it was “gravely concerned over what it sees as blatant, aggressive and unabashed attempts to manipulate the outcome of the upcoming elections”. It expressed anxiety over the Army’s plan to deploy over 370,000 troops at polling sites, as against merely 70,000 in the general election of 2013, when the security situation was much worse. Even more ominously, the Election Commission has allowed Army personnel to transport ballot papers to and from polling stations, raising questions about the transparency of the vote.

The PML-N has alleged serious harassment by the military. Former Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi told the media that senior party members were coerced to switch sides (to Imran Khan) and threatened with corruption cases. Some members claimed to have been hounded through the courts. Abbasi’s nomination papers were challenged in the Supreme Court, but he was ultimately cleared.

Sharif was ousted in 2017 after the Pakistan Supreme Court upheld a charge of failure to disclose a company directorship while in exile in Saudi Arabia, from which he had not drawn any salary. Later, he was banned from politics for life and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for failing to explain how his family acquired four luxury apartments in London. Sharif is not listed as the owner, but the court ruled that his conduct violated a Constitutional provision that officeholders be “honest” and “truthful”. He thus became the only Pakistani official ever convicted under that law, which many felt was selective accountability. The real reasons for Sharif’s fallout with the Army are his attempt to prosecute former dictator Gen Musharraf for treason, and seeking peace with India. However, by promptly returning to face imprisonment, he has made himself a martyr for democracy in Pakistan. Come Wednesday, the Generals will likely succeed in making Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf the largest party and Imran Khan their proxy Prime Minister. But as the economic crisis escalates and mullahs in Parliament demand their pound of flesh, Gen Zia’s heirs may find it difficult to cope with the mess of their own making.

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

Writer: Sandhya Jain

Courtesy: The Pioneer

It is the soldiers (Army) that has always called the gunshots in Pakistan. But when it comes to the General Election, it will disrupt the complete elected process to emerge as the arbiter of the destiny of that nation.

Writing about last week’s bloodshed in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistani daily, Dawn, wrote, “If there were any doubts that Pakistan still remains vulnerable to terrorism, the past week has put an end to them.” This is a polite but an irrefutable admission that willy-nilly terrorism is allowed to remain entrenched in Pakistan. Three separate attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan have claimed 150 lives, leaving 200 wounded. Among the dead were Awami National Party leader Haroon Bilour and Balochistan Awami Party candidate Siraj Raisani.

Notably, both political parties have been protesting against the suppression of the rights of their people and the hegemony of ethnic Punjabis. In Pakistan, ethnic Punjabis are predominant in the Army, civil administration, police force, intelligence organisations and Foreign Service. Though so far no terrorist attack of the magnitude of the three under discussion has taken place in the Sindh Province, nevertheless, Sindh does not lag behind in any of the non-Punjabi Provinces in having faced brutal terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks of this magnitude on the eve of General Elections carry more meaning than what meets the eye.

The Baloch nationalist movement is now a decade-old and under each military ruler in Pakistan, the Baloch people have suffered untold suppression and oppression. Some of their outstanding nationalist leaders have been liquidated mostly under fake encounters. Many of them suffered incarceration in false cases and biased judiciary had no qualms of conscience in being inimical towards them.

In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the Pakistani Army decimated the brave Pukhtuns, accusing them of complicity with the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Through carpet bombing, drone attacks and military operations like Zarbe Azab, the Pakistan Army got the credit of killing thousands of Pukhtun and destroying their habitats. The cry for a separate Pukhtun homeland, though suppressed brutally for some time by state authorities, has now resurged and the young Pukhtuns are swarming to the new movement in drones.

The crux of the matter is: Who are the people or organisations that undertook such bloodshed and for what purpose? People in Pakistan need not be told who the perpetrators of such ghastly killings are. Terrorist organisations, like TTP, Daesh (militant Islamic State group), Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi and others associated with them have a history drenched in blood. Whatever the frame and operational tactics of the organisation, they are ideologically same.

This July 25, General Elections in Pakistan will be the third such under the existing Constitution. The Constitution has been amended twice or thrice by military dictators and one civilian dictator. The last amendment made so far was by former military General Pervez Musharraf who was made the President after his term as Army Chief was over.

It was known to knowledgeable circles in Pakistan that the Army would manipulate the impending General Elections because it was under compulsion to do that. Senior echelons in the Pakistani Army understood that the world community no longer supported coup d’état and martial laws. Pakistan, now known for harbouring terror, is at pains to retrieve credibility as a law-abiding state and not as a rogue nation. It has become a compulsion for the Army to succumb to the democratic process.

The new game-plan of the Army is to accelerate terrorist onslaught, particularly on such political parties and candidates that are known to oppose the Army’s supremacy. Former Pakistan Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif and his party Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML (N)) have been targeted. Nawaz Sharif had forcefully demanded that in the light of the Constitutional provision, the Pakistan Army had to be subservient to the authority of the elected dispensation. This was nothing less than red rag to the bull.  The Army played a masterstroke: It roped in the judiciary to bring a case of corruption against Nawaz Sharif under Article 61 of the amended Constitution.

The judiciary in Pakistan has never enjoyed credibility with the civil society. Thus, the Army acting as proxy — a game in which it is adept at — managed to impose life-long ban on Nawaz Sharif from fighting the election. Not satisfied, the judicial authority sentenced him to 10 years in jail and his daughter, Maryam, who the Army apprehended might step into the shoes of  her father, has been sentenced to seven years in jail.

This was the Army’s first plan to forestall the return of PML(N) and it had been executed meticulously, thanks to a judiciary bankrupt of fair deal and fair conscience. The second safety valve manufactured by the Army was the creation of the Pakistan Tahreek-I Insaf (PTI) led by cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan.

The dharnas and protest rallies or the feigned long march which Imran Khan led in the past year could not be possible without the covert support of the Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).   Today, Imran Khan is enjoying the favour of being the head of the King’s party.

A close study of the history of the Pakistan Army will show that it has been the fiercest enemy of the democratic process in that country. Whenever it felt that democracy was on the verge of getting rooted in Pakistan, the Army played a game usually soaked in blood only to prevent the democratic process and intimidate those who dared to work towards the strengthening the roots of democracy in that country.

The policy of United States President Donald Trump indirectly accusing Pakistan of spreading terror in the region, especially in Afghanistan and Kashmir, has demoralised the Pakistan Army. Withholding of 300 million dollars of military and development aid has taken the wind out of the sails of the Pakistan Army. This has indirectly intensified the Army’s fears of being ultimately dominated by an elected Government in Islamabad. No wonder, the Pakistan Army will play a masterstroke at the end of the day and derail the entire election process to emerge once again as the arbiter of the destiny of the beleaguered nation.

(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University)

Writer: K N Pandita

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The hefty five billion dollar fine that EU imposed on Google on charges of anti-competitive practices will make little difference.

A five billion dollar fine that the European Commission imposed on Google on anti-competitive behaviour is just a drop in the ocean for the Silicon Valley giant. The technology company’s parent Alphabet announced that its annual revenues crossed $110 billion last year. Of course, Google will fight this fine, unprecedented in its scale, because of how it behaves with its mobile operating system Android. The allegations are very similar to those charged against Microsoft over two decades ago when it dominated the web browser space with Internet Explorer. Remember that? The fines and punishment hardly impacted Microsoft and the same is likely to happen to Google. But while Google has kept relatively quiet, the scandals surrounding Facebook haven’t gone away. Recently, Mark Zuckerberg said that he won’t crack down on Holocaust denying groups. This, after the Cambridge Analytica scandal where Facebook user data was compromised by a third-party. It appears that technology giants, which have disrupted traditional information sources, are not being responsible. They have allowed fake information to flourish; they have enabled hate groups like never before; and by swallowing up advertising revenue they have permanently compromised reliable information sources, such as newspapers. Yet, they have democratised information and challenged the sources of that information. But should they do more to mitigate fake news and also be more responsible with their market behaviour? Yes.

For far too long, technology has been the wild west in the name of technology and better features. Technology companies have gotten away with irresponsible behaviour. Their actions have killed competition and made many subservient to technology on the back of getting things for free. User data is the next goldmine that all sorts of technology companies and service providers want to mine. Your information and mine is up for sale, acquired without our explicit consent. There needs to be more oversight by administrators across the world. Nobody is arguing for a Chinese style leash and firewall — information should be available to everyone — but that information cannot be wrong. Companies should be allowed to thrive in this ecosystem. At the end of the day, technology should not help humankind not be something that takes over everything. Technology for technology’s sake is not the solution. The European Union’s fine on Google while admirable will do little to change the situation. Google and their services as well as Facebook are embedded in most of our lives and a fine and slap on the wrist will not change that.

Writer:  Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

As the Communist Party cannot rule without creating resentment, Jinping’s wish to make China a global power may not only land him in trouble, but might bring China to a dead-end.

China is a big country, a powerful state, but a nervous nation. Beijing is today able to rule far beyond its borders; a seemingly-insignificant incident: During the World Cup semi final between France and Belgium in Moscow, a French man shared his photos holding a Tibetan flag. Hugues Picon, the activist, was immediately arrested and kept in police custody and barred from entering the stadium for the final. He was probably unaware of the length of Beijing’s arm. However, China’s extended power is bound to create more and more problems for President Xi Jinping in the future. The Communist Party in Beijing can’t rule the world without creating resentment all-over. A commentator in the South China Morning Post pointed to a serious issue confronting the Middle Kingdom: “China needs to heed overseas unease as it moves to global centre-stage.”

Observers are concerned over the growth of Chinese nationalist pride and influence abroad. The Hong Kong paper remarked: “China must be wary of nationalist pride and its visions of taking global centre-stage triggering unease among its neighbours.” In a new book, China’s Change: The Greatest Show On Earth, Hugh Peyman, an old China watcher, questions: Has China got it right? Ultimately, Peyman believes that Deng Xiaoping’s approach will continue to serve the country well, and ‘as long as China keeps changing, it will find its way’. That is probably where the fate of China will be decided.

But can China change and become a state accepting the global rules of behaviour?  Unfortunately during the past five years, China has changed but for the worse, ignoring or antagonising its own periphery (Tibet, Xinjiang, et al), as well as its neighbourhood. The recent campaign to forcibly assimilate ethnic Uyghurs in Xinjiang in order to erase nationalist sentiment and create an Islam with socialist characteristics is a case in point. James Dorsey, a senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore, wrote that the move is bound to fail because it “ignores lessons learnt not only from recent Chinese history but also the experience of others.”

Referring to the Belt and Road Initiative, Dorsey added: “In what amounts to an attempt to square a circle, China is trying to reconcile the free flow of ideas inherent to open borders, trade and travel with an effort to fully control the hearts and minds of its population.” At the same time, inside censorship shows that not all is under control. The South China Morning Post observed: “China’s censors are scrambling to control the narrative about the trade war with the US by giving the media a list of dos and don’ts when reporting on the topic.”

Knowledgeable sources in the Chinese media told the newspaper that they had been told “not to over-report the trade war with US and be extremely careful about linking the trade war to stock market falls, the depreciation of the yuan or economic weakness to avoid spreading panic.” Is it possible to tightly manage everything and everyone? But presently control is extremely well-organised. According to Chinascope, a first batch of graduate students recently received Master’s degrees in United Front (UF) studies at the Central Institute of Socialism in Shandong University, the Chinese Communist Party’s training and education facility for its cadres. Chinascope said: “Since its launch in 2015, the program has recruited 38 doctoral and 50 masters degree students.” The UF is an organisation to carry out the party’s revolutionary and political campaigns not only in places like Tibet, Xinjiang or Taiwan, but also abroad.

The UF was introduced during the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution as the soft hand of the party. According to the Jamestown Foundation: “The United Front Work Department is the department of the CCP charged with consolidating support for Party policies among non-CCP members, including among individuals of Chinese descent overseas. It is has long been a key, albeit well concealed, element of the CCP’s foreign policy.” The last issue of the China Brief of the Jamestown Foundation takes the case of Mongolia: “Sinified religion has a role to play in Xi’s elevation of the UF into a foreign policy tool.”

It studied the case of the Jebtsundamba Hutugtu’s succession process: “It is perceived as a challenge the CCP’s neo-imperial reincarnation management system, which will undergo a major test when it comes to the selection of the next Dalai Lama reincarnation.” The Jebtsundamba is the equivalent of the Dalai Lama in Mongolia. The study shows that some unreported events in Mongolia “reveal attempts to cultivate senior lamas and exploit internal divisions to counter Dharamsala influence and earn global Buddhist ‘discourse power’.” Chinese organisations would like to compete with India for the lead of the Buddhist movement worldwide. The UF has considerably extended its influence under Xi, particularly by absorbing into the UF Department, the State Administration of Religious Affairs, a Government organisation which implements China’s religious policy. At the same time, Internet surveillance has tremendously expanded overseas, thanks to a host of new technologies.

Chinascope reported that Zhongkedianji Beijing Technology, a big data firm in Beijing, admitted to have developed a software called ‘junquan yuqun’; it is capable of detecting more than 8,000 ‘sensitive’ websites in Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan: “In addition, it has established 18,000 information outlets in China which can monitor news, forums, blogs, microblogs, pictures, and videos. It can even collect information in 53 languages including English, French, Spanish, and the languages of ethnic minorities in China.” The company’s website said that the surveillance system can “carry out public opinion analyses, information warnings, and hot spot analyses. It can collect negative public opinion, public opinion trends, briefings, analyses, forwarded information, and do statistical analyses for the Government. It can monitor news, forums, blogs, Weibo, pictures, videos.”

Surveillance also applies to the Chinese expats. Bilahari Kausikan, Singapore’s former permanent secretary for Foreign Affairs, recently told a forum in Singapore: “In plain language, what this means is that overseas Chinese should be persuaded, induced, or in extremis, coerced, into accepting allegiance to China as at least part of their identity.” It is quite frightening. But ultimately, this will bring China to a dead-end. Too many foes will be unmanageable, even for a big power. Will Xi get the message before it is too late?

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

Writer: Claude Arpi

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Sharply diving the Nicaraguan society, the President, Daniel Ortega, fails to acknowledge that the public’s mood may cost him his presidentship.

As public protest in Nicaragua has deepened, Daniel Ortega, the embattled President of the country, is battling for his survival. Though his term will end in 2021, protesters are bent on seeking his immediate resignation and an early election. His revolutionary party Sandinista National Liberation Front (in Spanish, Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional — FSNL) came to power with a promise to offer a reformist Left front regime in the country. He was the man behind ousting dictator Anastacio Samoza Debayle from power in the 1970s. However, since his first term in office in 1985, Ortega has changed his style of governance, turning the whole Government into a family business and promoting his cronies in Government enterprises. Besides, in 2016 when he came to power again, he chose to make his wife Rosario Murillo his Vice-President.

Now the moot point is why protests are continuing unabated and how the Ortega Government is planning to address the crisis. The saga of stand-off started in April 18, 2018, between his Government and a section of people as a reaction to cut in the pension system. Once protests intensified, the Ortega Government reversed the order for the status quo. Surprisingly, the protesters resolved to remain on the streets across the country and raised many other issues. These all include massive corruption charges against Ortega family and a section of cronies, his increasing dictatorial style of functioning, and finally, the elevation of his wife, Murillo to the office of the Vice-President. The demonstrators seemed to have made up their mind to push Ortega out of office.

The capital city of Managua has become “Tahrir Square” of Nicaragua. The regional human rights body, named Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), says hundreds have died during protest against the Ortega regime since April 18 as the Government deployed special force “Grupos de Choque” (Shock Forces) to repress protests. Currently, demonstrators openly blame the Shock Forces and the Army for all the violence taking place in the country. But, the establishment accuses criminal gangs and specific political groups for creating unrest against the legitimate Government of Ortega.

What surprises the international community is that this chaos is completely different from earlier ones in Nicaragua. Precisely, the lead protesters are no other than students from universities from different parts of the country. Joining them are ordinary people from all walks of life. This is making the whole chaos complicated for Ortega. More particularly, the Catholic Church and the business community too have joined hands with the commoners against the Government.

People are demanding deep democratic reforms. And all of them believe that if Ortega continues in office, no such reforms can be carried out. Simply put, his administration will not allow any reform which might derail him from power, they believe. However, the Ortega Government thinks the new rebellion is nothing but a “coup” to remove a democratically elected president of the country.

The IACHR and Amnesty International are urging the Nicaraguan Government not to use lethal weapons against the protesters. Also, they are calling for an investigation into the use of force by paramilitary forces in the country. However the Government has straightway denied any allegation of using lethal forces against the people and blames the opposition political forces and thugs for the current mess in Nicaragua.

Currently, a national dialogue between the Government and the protesters has failed as the latter insisted on the resignation of Ortega. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church and the Organization of American States have offered to mediate. But frankly speaking, it would be difficult to bring the Government and the protesters back to table soon. In case, the national dialogue revives, it can work well, but then Ortega will not step down so easily. What will happen next, no one knows for now. If Sandinistas have to go, they won’t go peacefully. Record shows when he lost election in 1990, million of dollars of public money was transferred to Government loyalists on Ortega orders and bureaucrats looted the offices in broad daylight. Is it going to be another affair to be remembered with horror and despise? Let’s have a look at history.

By 1970s, America’s hemispheric policy was dominated by the spectre of “another Cuba”. With the rise of Fidel Castro’s revolutionary regime right at the backyard of the US, Washington too was cautious about such upheavals in South America. To prevent such unwanted fears, then US President Lyndon Johnson had sent a force of 20,000 men to the Dominican Republic in 1965 and equally cautious Henry Kissinger quickly brought Chile under the surveillance of the CIA. But then, the fall of the thuggish Samoza dynasty in Nicaragua made this fear more palpable for Washington. At any cost, the policy-makers in the US wanted to prevent a Sandinista regime in Managua. What happened in Nicaragua literally shocked the Americans — a Sandinista regime was formed by the guerrillas. Ortega initially ran the Government very well with friendly attitude towards the business community. But he continued to suppress the Opposition and cut freedom of the press.

Described by his admirers, Ortega is not a public intellectual as he had to cut short his studies to join the Leftist guerilla warfare in the past. But surely, he has mastered the craft of becoming an astute political operator — he is expert in making new alliances and dividing and debilitating his enemies.

Again, Ortega’s bond with the church is remarkable. An atheist earlier has gradually cemented his ties with the priests across the country. Between 2013 and 2015, his Government spent $3.2 million public money to install decorative metal trees in and around Managua. These biblically inspired trees, called as “Trees of Life” come up with high power lights at night showcasing both beauty and his reverence for the faith. In 2016 election, wherein he won a landslide victory, the party posters display the curious slogan across: “Christian, Socialist, Solidarity”. Since then, he has been using this policy of mixing religion and politics only to promote his policies and programmes through them. But the irony is that this is the same old church which helped oust the authoritarian Government of Ortega is now fast becoming his friend.

His brand of “state capitalism” has more loopholes than advantages. It has sharply divided the Nicaraguan society. Ortega faces his last test of survival. His failure to acknowledge the mood of the public will cost him dear. Nicaragua is soon falling into an abyss. Political pundits say it is in the process of turning into another Venezuela.

(The writer is an expert on international affairs)

Writer: Makhan Saikia

Courtesy: The Pioneer

India has to play the balancing act through multi-alignment with the US and China in order to positively engage with the countries and preserve its strategic autonomy.

After the second India-China Maritime Affairs Dialogue held in Beijing last week, it was made clear to China that the evolving India-Pacific strategy was not aimed at China’s containment. It was also stated that both countries discussed perspectives in maritime security and cooperation, with New Delhi elucidating the contours of the Quad — Quadrilateral dialogue  India-US-Japan-Australia — which was dismissed by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi as “headline grabbing” and “foam on the ocean that would dissipate soon”. Modi’s keynote address at this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue helped allay apprehensions about the Quad’s target being China. There has been considerable confusion about the strategic geography of the Indo-Pacific as also of its possible military content and configuration. The belated elaboration follows the reset of India-China relations at Wuhan and the unprecedented uncertainty and unpredictability over Trump’s capricious actions that call for discretion and caution over any rash geostrategic commitment to the US which are perceived as directed at China.

India-US relations have seen an upward trajectory,  driven by extensive military and economic engagement. In Trump’s first policy declaration on South Asia and Afghanistan in August 2017, he praised India for its stabilising role in Afghanistan. In the US National Security Strategy paper of December 2017, India figured as the US’ global and most favoured defence partner. With China, the narrative has been marred by glitches, aberrations and  hostility. The Modi Government, in pursuit of a muscular policy, which ignored the asymmetry in national power, found to its discomfiture that a risen China was leave alone being containable, not even receptive to India’s legitimate asking for clarification of LAC. This deviation from the established policy of keeping the boundary question on the back burner (Special Representatives reached an impasse after 19 rounds of conversations on a political solution to the boundary question) maintaining peace and tranquillity on LAC and while managing other contradictions, getting on with trade and commerce. Still there were border conflicts at Depsang, Chumar that culminated with Doklam. Given India’s unenviable two-front challenge, a temperamental Trump and looming uncertainty, the Government sought a recalibration of relations with China. Normalisation of ties with Beijing needed clarification on Indo-Pacific and Quad. Rewind to the first edition of the Raisina Dialogue, 2016, New Delhi. Admiral  Harry Harris, the US Pacific Commander, in his keynote address, invoked the Obama-Modi Joint Strategic Vision Statement of 2015 which identified Asia-Pacific (including South China Sea and Indian Ocean) as the key lifelines requiring freedom of navigation and open skies. Harris called the region Indo-Asia-Pacific and proposed to India “we need you, your leadership”. He added, “let us be ambitious together”. He raised two issues: The Quad and joint patrolling anywhere in the Indian Ocean, South China Sea or “anywhere our leaders decide”. In Raisina 2017, Harris renamed Asia Pacific as Greater Indo Pacific and continued with the strategic seduction of India by inviting it to sign the two remaining foundational agreements — Communication, Compatibility and Security Arrangement and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Cooperation. These two are unlikely to be inked anytime soon. At Raisina 2018, Harris called China a “disruptive transitional force in Indo Pacific”. Although Harris retired this year, he ensured his command was redesignated as the Indo Pacific Command.

Indo Pacific translates differently to different countries in the region. At Shangrila, Modi said, “India does not see the Indo Pacific as a strategy or as a club of limited members. Nor as a grouping that seeks to dominate. And by no means directed at any one country”. While Quad was not mentioned, strategic autonomy was. Actually, it was our own Commander Gurpreet Khurana who coined the term Indo Pacific before anyone else as linking Indian Ocean with West Pacific through Malacca Straits. The Quad similarly has a history dating back to 2007 and was mooted by Japan’s Shinzo Abe. It was formally revived in 2017 with its first meeting at Manila as a Track I dialogue of junior level officials. India is the only country that does not have a permanent presence in the Pacific Ocean like the other three; and is the only one to share a land border with China. It is also the only country not part of any military  alliance. In the four separate statements after the first Quad, Free and Open and Rule-based order in the Indo-Pacific appeared as a common objective.

The second meeting of the Quad last month in Singapore shared objectives in areas of connectivity, development, regional security, including counter-terrorism, non-proliferation and maritime cooperation. The centrality of Asean was highlighted. Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Sunil Lanba said that Quad does not have a military dimension. He also said that there were no plans for joint patrols with the US or any country which is not a maritime neighbour of India. The strategic community is divided on India joining the Quad with a military and security architecture whose object is to counter China’s hegemony in the Indo-Pacific. They cite China’s fait accompli of creating militarised islands in South China Sea as designed to breaking out of the first island chain which  they say, must be checked and rolled back.

Last year, the External Affairs Ministry hailed the Indo-US partnership in maintaining stability in the Asia Pacific region after Trump declared India as a leading global partner in his National Security Strategy paper. For the last 20 years,  annually, the Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis, New Delhi, has strenuously scouted in vain for an Asian security structure akin to Nato. For the Indo-Pacific at best one can conceive of a regional maritime cooperative security structure which is not threat but capability based to meet common challenges  in the Indo-Pacific with India focusing on the Indian Ocean. India has made substantial unilateral concessions to China to secure the Wuhan summit and to ensure the Government is not diverted over the next 12 months from its single-minded goal of winning the next election. Inviting Trump for the Republic Day is a minor risk compared to  the accompanying institutional gains. Given the lack of full deterrence, India has to constructively engage with the US, China and others to preserve strategic autonomy through multi-alignment.

(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