In spite of buzzwords such as diversity and heterogeneity, such a culture stands for homogeneity and singularity in thought and action
That an innocent sounding word, “cancel”, has come to define contemporary culture in modern democracies may sound rather baffling to a lay person. The fact that it actually has, at least in select spaces involving debate and dialogue, reveals the degeneration of those spaces, theoretically given to welcoming diverse opinions. In everyday usage, cancel may mean withdrawal or scrapping of a contract, but the “cancel culture”, which unfortunately has become the logic of an impatient generation, has many more layers of meaning that are interlocking and complex. Regardless of its advocates from contrasting ideological umbrellas, “cancel culture” implies that the country and its institutions have failed the people, prompting the militantly “conscientious” groups to take over. Needless to say, such campaigns remain predominantly urban and middle-class. Analysts have traced the prevalence of this culture as definitive of our intellectual reality to the #MeToo campaign in the US. A powerful and perfectly legitimate movement slowly became the weapon of a generation glued to the internet, though without any sincere commitment to the cause that defined earlier generations of protesters, involving marches or picketing, which were demanding in terms of time and energy. Before we realised its frequent occurrence and increasing moralising tendency, it had become part of our cultural sphere and expressed itself through withdrawal of support, challenging authority and advocating suspension of the offender. Thus, Starbucks was targetted for asking its employees not to wear “Black Lives Matter” badges, a gym club brand, Equinox, faced backlash after its owner was found collecting donations for US President Donald Trump. Opinion writer Bari Weiss resigned from her job when her employer, The New York Times, failed to protect her from constant harassment by her colleagues for holding on to different political values. JK Rowling was “cancelled” because of what was seen as her intolerance of trans-women.
The war among liberals: In-built into “cancel culture” is an ethical imperative on the part of the people championing it, who see themselves as the defenders of democratic ethos, prompting them to raise their voices against what they feel is unjust. What is ignored in this so-called ethical order is the reality of an anti-democratic force that betrays intolerance of difference and disagreement. That explains why the same group of people demanding freedom end up cancelling conservative intellectuals. So “cancel culture” remains anti-democratic and promotes a culture of purity where being different and adversarial are offensive. In spite of buzzwords such as diversity and heterogeneity, such a culture stands for homogeneity and singularity in thought and action. It always looks for new outrages almost as an obsessive compulsive and pounces upon the politically incorrect to threaten him/her or the organisation so as to impose costs.
If it silences democracy in the name of democracy, tramples upon freedom in the name of freedom, we must understand where this habit of speaking in a forked tongue is coming from. It is not difficult to understand that it emanates from within liberal discourse and survives on its propensity towards double-speak and obfuscation. Writing letters to put pressure on governments and organisations for protecting rights, which the Left liberal intelligentsia excels in, is a technique whereby they legitimise themselves. When JK Rowling joined hands with Chomsky, Fukuyama, Rushdie, Atwood and so on, and called out this “cancel culture” as intolerance in an open letter published in Harper’s Magazine, she was, to some extent, joining hands with those who gave oxygen to such a culture. They wrote, “Censoriousness is spreading more widely in our culture: An intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.” What these people often forget is that writing such letters is always more about protecting their authority over liberalism than the cause itself. If they suddenly realise the violence of “cancel culture”, they should not look beyond themselves to find its provenance. “Cancel culture” is a product of their muscular approach to truth.
Even as “cancel culture” is a product of liberal discourse, it poses an existential threat to that discourse in its demand for a forced outcome rather than a process-oriented approach. It is equally protestant in nature in the sense that it has scant respect for liberal idols and high priests who symbolise entitlement. In fact, we may discern inter-generational conflict within this liberalism or a kind of castration anxiety (in Freudian terms). It marks the coming of age of the next generation of relatively young champions, who see their ideological fathers as patriarchs who have always benefitted from peddling liberal wares. When Pankaj Mishra trashed the Harper’s Magazine letter, he showed a mirror to these ideologues and accused them of fighting for their own freedom rather than that of free speech. This competitive liberalism is not a fight between right and wrong, but the sign that a smooth transition is not taking place. Unlike political parties or sports teams, the “liberal progressive” shop has the same set of owners who refuse to allow the new generation to replace them. Impatient, restless, combative and young, “cancel culture” warriors cannot see themselves waiting perpetually to be counted as intellectual adults. When Pankaj Mishra took issue with Rushdie for being called “the voice of the continent”, he was protesting against an intellectual culture that condemns authors like him (Mishra) to the waiting room of intellectual history.
The Indian story: In India, unlike the US, this culture has traversed both Left-and Right-wing narratives as well as not so politically-conscious actors. In the recent Bloomsbury controversy relating to a book on Delhi riots, the first move came from the Left to cancel the book followed by backlash from the non-Left quarters, who took issue with Bloomsbury’s cancellation and then cancelled Bloomsbury as a publisher of their choice. The death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput (SSR) also created a polarising climate where the outsiders to Bollywood, such as SSR, were pitted against the privileged insiders, who took their stardom for granted. This infuriated and angry group collectively trashed Sadak 2, a movie made by one who is seen as a promoter of nepotism.
However, it will be off the mark to project this as the expression of Right-wing angst. On most occasions Bollywood prima donnas of liberal hue have voiced their opinion against politicians, fellow actors and producers and whoever they imagined is expressing anti-democratic values. The present polarisation of Bollywood and its adoption of “cancel culture” implies the culture’s traction, cutting across ideological lines.
“Cancel culture” in India remains derivative of American leads, as in the “Black Lives Matter” movement being converted into “Dalit Lives Matter.” However, the cultural Right is learning from its past mistakes and using the vocabulary of democracy and victimhood for its own purpose. Like its Left adversaries, its supporters are writing letters to the public or to the President to raise awareness. They are writing books and speaking from public fora and forcing the Left to dehumanise itself by turning violent. Even as the Right is learning from the Left, the latter is getting into the slush of what it accused the Right to be. The liberal Left, which claimed to have exclusive right over free speech, now understands that liberty and free speech are no longer its exclusive domains. Leftists fear that liberty can be effectively used by the Right and this makes it suspect liberty as an impediment to its ideals of democracy and justice.
Economic imperative: There is yet another dimension of “cancel culture”, namely the economic imperative. Sometimes, acting on public outrage, as in sacking an employee for contrarian political values or insensitive posts, organisations seek to arrest a backlash or cash in on public outrage or hold on to their clientele. Given that the US intellectual sphere is totally dominated by the Left and the so-called multi-culturalism complex, and common people do not care much until election time, the media and publishing industry actually gain from this competitive outrage. In India however, due to its millennia old culture that has been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, such disruptive changes remain confined to select, elite spaces.
(The writer is Professor, IIT, Madras)
It seems that the internal problems of other nations make up the necessary ‘bind’ that keeps our fractured and restive neighbour going
Pakistan was born to a regressive, exclusivist and instinctively interfering idea that has pandered to religiosity as a central tenet. This has over time pushed its fate towards the slippery slope of revisionism and medievalism. While the success of the secular “idea of India” and the independence of Bangladesh ought to have conclusively trashed the flawed “two-nation theory,” Pakistan has oddly accelerated its puritanical impulses towards unprecedented levels. From civilian Governments to military men, all have conceded ground to the mullahs, extremist ideologies and even terror organisations. A so-called liberal like Zulfikar Bhutto was responsible for declaring Ahmadis as “non-Muslims,” a career soldier like General Zia-ul-Haq ushered in Shariaisation, Benazir Bhutto’s Interior Minister Nasrullah Babar was responsible for creating the Taliban and so on. Each and every leader tried to run with the hare and hunt with the hound, thinking that they could manage and misuse religious passion for their own advantage but like the proverbial genie that once unleashed cannot revert, Pakistan is now combusting from within. Yet, it refuses to acknowledge and renege from the dangerous games of its past and the result is the Frankensteinian monster of religious extremism.
Pakistan’s exposed infamy as the “terror nursery” explains the ongoing tryst with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), where it stands to be black/grey listed for its sovereign stand on money laundering and terror financing. As per FATF findings till now, Pakistan has “strategic deficiencies” that barely mask its indefensible reputation for misadventures in Afghanistan, India, Iran, Middle Eastern swathes to now even in the latest flashpoint, Azerbaijan. Former Commander of US forces in Afghanistan, Lieutenant-General John Nicholson, had complained about Pakistan’s incorrigibility by stating, “We have been very direct and very clear with the Pakistanis... we have not seen those changes implemented yet.” He had unambiguously added that the Pakistani establishment was harbouring “agents of chaos.” Typically, Pakistan denied the accusations and attributed all wrongdoings to what it has patently and conveniently called “non-State actors”. The conceptual formulation of “non-State actors” offers it an implausible opportunity of official deniability as Pakistan’s duplicity on terror has got firmly established; hence the FATF proceedings. The slamming observation and warning to Pakistan by the then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, that the “snakes in your backyard won’t bite only neighbours”, has gone expectedly unheeded as the foundational spirit underlying the nation justifies its routine dalliances in the inappropriate name of religion. It is almost as if the internal problems of other nations are the necessary “bind” that keeps the fractured and restive Pakistan going. And Azerbaijan is its latest expression and foray.
As the bloody war between Azerbaijan and Armenia escalates in the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh, it collaterally galvanises foreign powers to intervene militarily in order to pursue their own selfish agenda. Unfortunately, this war in the erstwhile region of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) has an unmistakable angularity of religion, where a Christian Armenia is pitted against a predominantly Muslim Azerbaijan. This opens the window to a neighbouring Turkey to establish its quest as the new “leader” of the Ummah (displacing the Arab Sheikhdoms) and to perpetuate its historical animus with Armenians. Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan fancies itself as the sole power that hasn’t “succumbed” to Israel (towards the rapprochement and normalcy of ties of Tel Aviv with Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and by default, even Riyadh). This intra-Ummah struggle has seen Turkey tactically championing Kashmir even as Pakistan’s historical allies like Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates have started showing disinterest in such pitches. The fight for leadership is so intense that Saudi Arabia has called for an embargo on Turkish products and stopped further aid to cash-strapped Pakistan. Beyond China, today it is only Turkey that is supporting Pakistan at multi-lateral forums. So it is critical for Pakistan to reciprocate and curry favour with Ankara to consolidate its new-found and only ally (beyond Beijing). In siding with Azerbaijan, Pakistan kills three birds with one stone as it remains consistently involved in others’ matters, reciprocates by backing Turkey and can claim religious context for its action.
Officially, Pakistan denies any involvement in Azerbaijan, as it always does. However, the Pakistani Foreign Office leaves no doubt about its position in the conflict when it says, “intensive shelling by Armenian forces on Azerbaijan’s civilian population is reprehensible and most unfortunate” but denies sending Pakistani troops to fight alongside the Turkish and Azeri soldiers. Tellingly, Azerbaijan’s President, Ilham Aliyev, thanked both Turkey and Pakistan for their support in the fight against Armenian forces.
There is a tell-tale Pakistani pattern to external interferences that over time justifies and legitimises its own misadventures to itself. A key component of that strategy is what it ostensibly calls “non-State actors.” As early as 1947-48, it sent tribal lashkar (militia) from Waziristan to capture Kashmir even as it denied any official patronage. Its military doctrine to “bleed India with a thousand cuts” is from the same fount. Later in the Kargil war also, it was the infiltration of Pakistani military regulars in the guise of local Kashmiris that had been publicly opposed. The unconvincing cover of Pakistani involvement in foreign war theatres like Afghanistan and Kargil was later blown by self-goals by none less than former Generals like Hamid Gul, Ashraf Rashid and even former President, Pervez Musharraf.
Pakistan is a past master in arranging “mercenaries” or “non-State actors” that partake in operations at the behest of its establishment, and the comment of the Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister, Avet Adonts, that “we can’t exclude the possibility” of Pakistani wherewithal, is so familiar and repetitive. But as usual, Pakistan is playing a dangerously high stakes game of realpolitik where a lot more is loaded against it this time. Despite earning international notoriety as an unreliable partner in the global “war on terror,” the foundational flaw of the nation is too deep-rooted, existential and regime-sustaining to warrant any course correction. Though in the Azerbaijan-Armenia theatre, it may perhaps bite more than what many of its traditional supporters themselves will tolerate any further, let alone the rest of the world.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands)
Tightening rules for H-1B visas would be counter-productive but the US President needs a sales pitch for polls
With the US presidential elections less than 30 days away and challenger Joe Biden beating Donald Trump in the approval ratings, the incumbent President has literally pulled out what he thinks is his trump card. His administration has tightened rules for the 85,000 annual immigration visas used by technology firms on the plea that the “new system would be better for American workers” as “data” has shown that over “5,00,000 Americans have lost their jobs because of H-1B non-immigrants.” Though the move may go down well among Trump’s key constituents of conservatives, who want to “make America great again” and give him a fighting chance at the hustings — which he all but threw away through his reckless handling of the Covid crisis — the US technology industry is up in arms. This is because the new rules that cut back H-1B visas for foreign skilled workers and tighten wage-based entry barriers would make it harder for companies to hire talent. However, this latest decision could face scrutiny from US courts because significant changes have been made by the US Department of Homeland Security and Department of Labour to the definition of speciality occupation and the employer-employee relationship. Plus, the validity of an H-1B visa has been limited to one year from the three years it used to be earlier for technology workers at a third-party worksite. This will negatively impact US firms and Indian services and recruitment companies that often place workers on projects at third-party locations. Plus it will hit Indian tech giants like Wipro, Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), who send workers from India to manage important projects. To add to the woes of technology firms as well as applicants, the minimum wage levels at which H-1B employees can be hired have also been increased significantly.
The move is likely to affect Indian techies the most as India and China account for the lion’s share of the visas, with India cornering over 70 per cent of them. Now, under the new rules, about one-third of H-1B applicants visas would be rejected as the number of speciality occupations available has shrunk drastically. It might also sour the US’ relations with India. The US lacks STEM skills and restricting access to talent could slow down research and development. How exactly Trump hopes to help the US economy with this move is unclear because restricting the H-1B visa programme would lead to an increase in outsourcing, thereby defeating the purpose of bringing the rules in the first place.
There is no such thing as a “China Expert.” Such is the secretive nature of China’s communist party that information barely trickles out of the ‘bamboo curtain’ and is seldom verifiable. Many China analysts are left red-faced when their assumptions are disproved, or their analysis turns out to be based on untenable facts. The resulting chasm in understanding China, its culture and global objectives cannot be plugged by making Sun Tzu a part of the curriculum at Sandhurst or West Point. Small wonder that in times of the pandemic, the reaction to China’s much more muscular approach in its geopolitics ranges from the absurd to the speculative. Baseless theories such as an over-reaction from a beleaguered regime abound. One theory which may not be far from the truth is that it is an integral part of a grandiose strategy for world domination.
There is no denying the fact that China’s objective is to colonise weaker economies right up to Central Asia, South America and Africa by imposing terms for debtor nations to allow access to ports and other critical infrastructure facilities. Looking at the map of the ‘Belt-and-Road Initiative’ it is easy to see how countries up to Europe would become dependant on the BRI, dubbed as the new silk route. This could be accentuated if the maritime routes were to face a blockade - the Strait of Hormuz by a belligerent Iran or the Strait of Malacca by India or the Quad for instance.
The crisis in the Himalayas is not accidental and the West would be foolish to dismiss it as a territorial squabble over a few hundred kilometres of barren land caused by faulty British cartography. The areas which have sparked the conflict overlook the China-Pakistan-Economic-Corridor which passes through territory which India has historically claimed to have been forcibly occupied by Pakistan and now ceded to China. If Pakistan cedes more of the disputed Kashmir region to China, the world will be unable to prevent a bloody conflict which could quickly snowball and assume unmanageable proportions.
Another reason why the two countries are locked in an eyeball to eyeball confrontation is that the rivers of India, Bangladesh and South East Asia originate in the Himalayan region. Anyone who has thought about the reasons why the next great war will be about water will realise the strategic importance of this region and China’s desire to control it.
China has consistently, equated India with Pakistan, obstructing its acceptance as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and opposing it at every opportunity in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. India’s significant role in the Quad and fears that the Quad could become militarised can only be catalysts to China’s quest to teach India a lesson. Viewed through this prism, it is clear why a Chinese strategist in Beijing, would consider the pandemic to be an opportunity to put India in its place, before it becomes a huge spoiler. This realisation may be a rude but inevitable shock since even if there were no long-term strategic reason, if China’s objective is world dominance, it must first cut India down to size.
It is not fanciful for analysts to con-sider the rivalry between the two most populous countries as being civilisational. Students in Chinese universities will tell you that China sees itself as a superior culture, suppressed so far because of Western colonialism. Although Indian history dates back much further, it sneers at India as an inferior and weaker civilisation.
Meanwhile, academics such as the virulently anti-American, Professor Madhubani believe that China has already won the race for ascendancy. Oblivious of the fact that it is fatal to underestimate America, the fallacy in their argument lies in assuming that economic growth in GDP terms is the sole measure of a nation’s success. GDP is merely the sum total of all transactions in an economy. Even if China does surpass the USA in this metric, this by itself, would not make it the new economic powerhouse, leave alone the world’s dominant power.
The United States became a global power after the second great war due to a new world order which was driven by the inherent needs of its allies. Quite simply, the dollar would be the central reserve currency, fuelling its economic dominance, while the U.S.A. would guarantee the security needs of its friends and allies. Aptly labelled by some commentators as the “guns for butter” deal, this quid pro quo was not entirely transactional. Despite differences with its allies and diplomatic arm-twisting, America did not expect them to circumvent their national priorities in deference to its own dictates. In large part this is because the allies being western democracies were inherently aligned on the core issues. Every member of the family was at the dining table, even if some were allergic to the soup. China, on the other hand, attempts to use its financial muscle to coax, bully and threaten nations into co-operating with it in an attempt to spread its own version of what it hopes will be a new world order. This can succeed only up to a point, beyond which the countries in its sphere of influence will face internal strife and unseating of those in power.
Dim-witted economists conclude otherwise on the assumption that becoming the largest trading partner of the rest of the world equates insurmountable power and influence. Yet, there is no reason whatsoever for the world to shift to the Yuan as its central reserve currency. How many countries would be comfortable maintaining its reserves in the currency of a nation which had Tiananmen Square and continually attempts to impose its hegemony across the globe? The kind of flux that such instability brings cannot be underestimated. We have already witnessed this when according to some reports, there was a flight of capital of around $1.5 trillion when China briefly allowed capital account convertibility. When Chinese people do not trust their money to remain safe in their own country, how will the rest of the world do so? In plain terms - does any economist seriously believe that the best and the brightest will stop making a beeline to New York and California and head instead to Beijing? There is a reason why China has had to resort to stealing intellectual property and will continue to need to do so.
The central fallacy is in ignoring the close relationship between economic and political systems. A country which has no qualms about tracking the movements of its people, censoring free speech and stamping out political opposition will never prosper to the point of fostering a creative and progressive environment which breeds innovation and prosperity. Both these attributes arise out of respect which is a much more subtle measure than the GDP. The failure to understand that power and influence flow from respect and not bare muscle is stark. There is a close nexus between economic power and politicosocial values and those who think that economic size will result in China imposing the Yuan as the central reserve currency, are unrealistic at best. The efficacy of an economy depends not so much on its quantum and size but more so on the quality of the produce and the lives of its citizens.
Emergence of the dragon as the global bully
Since the outbreak of the pandemic, China has puzzled many by assuming the role of a global bully. Contrary to the Sino-British declaration of 1984, it subverted the democratic process in Hong Kong, and openly threatens to invade Tai-wan, at one point, reportedly exhorting its soldiers to write goodbye letters to their families. Despite the ruling of the Tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, (that it has no legal basis to claim the resources within its so-called “ninedash line”), it continues to claim exclusive dominion over the South China Sea, and snarls at any international presence. It breathes fire at Australia for “daring to” question its role in the outbreak of COVID19 and threatened the speaker of the Czech Republic’s senate saying it would pay a “heavy price” for visiting Taiwan.
In June, the PLA walked into the Himalayan region bordering India, up-setting the equilibrium across an un-demarcated border (the “line of actual control”) which has sustained without a gunshot being fired in anger for more than five decades. Having first occupied a buffer zone area, it then had the audacity to unilaterally claim large swathes of the region to be its own.
While there may be strands of truth in the several explanations for this belligerence, (ranging from internal pressures to taking advantage of a distracted world), analysts are yet to formulate a coherent view of the problematic conduct.
When the cold war ended, military planners wondered which war they should plan for against which enemy. The belief that it was now a unipolar world ignored the fact that only one of the two communist regimes of the world had imploded. This consensus, coupled with the fact that the cold war had also exhausted the West, led it to brush the Tiananmen Square massacre under the carpet, after some clucking of tongues. Within a short time thereafter, China became a member of the WTO.
China knew that a kinetic war with the West was out of the question. The meltdown of the Soviet Bloc illustrated the dangers of economic isolation. The West did not realise the dangers of a totalitarian regime whose advent into the W.T.O now afforded it the opportunity to first ensure that it would not collapse under its own weight, unlike its Bolshevik neighbour and thereafter to strengthen its economic power to the point where it would seek to colonise much of Asia, Africa and Central Europe.
When China became a member of the W.T.O. in 2000-01, the West believed, in the words of President Clinton, that “It represents the most significant opportunity that we have had to create positive change in China”. Acknowledging that “China is a one-party state that does not tolerate opposition. It does deny citizens fundamental rights of free speech and religious expression. It does defend its interests in the world, and sometimes in ways that are dramatically at odds from our own”, Mr. Clinton then articulated the great blunder in the belief that “Membership in the W.T.O., of course, will not create a free society in China overnight or guarantee that China will play by global rules. But over time, I believe it will move China faster and further in the right direction, and certainly will do that more than rejection would”.
The engagement with China, in direct contrast to the shunning of the Soviet Union, was predicated on the expectation of its tariffs falling by half or more, enabling access to the biggest market in the world. Mr. Clinton’s words on that fateful day are telling. He went on to state that, “… our companies will be able to sell and distribute products in China made by workers here in America without being forced to relocate manufacturing to China, sell through the Chinese government, or transfer valuable technology — for the first time. We’ll be able to export products without exporting jobs”.
One barely resists the temptation to scoff. Considering that it was the isolation of the Soviet bloc which caused it to self-destruct, one wonders whether the expectation of a communist regime changing “in the right direction” is attributable to the naivety of the times, or the fact that the U.S. and the West believed that supporting China’s entry into the W.T.O., was in their economic interests. Clearly, the threat perception from a “third world nation” failed to take into account a truism – that an economic system cannot be divorced from the political framework. While Karl Marx’s ideals are commendable, the difficulty is that communism, as an economic system necessarily requires a dictatorial form of Government. One does not have to be a historian to understand that the two (communism and totalitarian regimes) cannot be decoupled. Nor does one need to have studied history to know that Stalin and Mao were strongmen, who would not blink at genocide for the sake of their ideology. One cannot remember them today without thinking of Siberia and the gulags. China convinced world leaders, fatigued by the cold war and believing in the invincibility of the capitalist system, that it was only a different system of Government born, after all, of a revolution of the people but which was business oriented.
The scourge of the world was the communist regime of the Soviet Union and not its people, who were oppressed and denied of all rights, just as the Chinese people remain victims of the Chinese Communist Party. Unfortunately, the world has yet to realise the dangers of a totalitarian communist regime. A China believing in the supremacy of its Han ancestors and its culture and the inevitability of it becoming the dominant global power, cannot be persuaded to “change in the right direction” by doing business with it. The direction it sets out for itself has nothing to do with Western democratic ideals. Given this, it is not difficult to see why China (mis) used free trade to garner economic power. How they did so, and the propensity of the West to turn a blind eye as long as there is a perceived economic benefit is another story worth telling.
US President Donald Trump has joined the list of world leaders who have been diagnosed with Covid-19, but like the United Kingdom’s Boris Johnson and Brazil’s Jair Bolsanaro, he is also a leader who was once sceptical of the virus. Bolsanaro was quarantined for a couple of weeks and Johnson was hospitalised and even administered oxygen. So far, Trump appears, at least from what we hear, to have escaped the worst. Yet, unlike the other two, Trump is in the midst of election season. Indeed, voting day for the US Presidential election is under one month away. But instead of convalescing, he has used the last few days to actively campaign, and while we are unaware of the advice doctors have given him, one is pretty sure that keeping his mask on in public is one of them. And his bravado may do more harm than good.
But Trump has always been a bit fast and loose with facts and best practices surrounding the pandemic. He is right in calling out China’s double standards and hypocrisy around the virus but by not taking the impact of the pandemic seriously enough, many lives have been lost in the US. However, in his defence, Trump’s position right now is a delicate one. He is not a young man and the US Presidential election is a tiring one, particularly given the bizarre way the US conducts it. This involves large amounts of travel across a geographically large country and his precarious health will affect his campaigning. We are still not aware if Trump’s diagnosis will impact the US Presidential election but it also highlights how uniquely susceptible politicians and the political process are to the pandemic. While education and some other sectors have switched to working from home, politics by its very nature involves social gatherings. In India, we do not know how adverse or otherwise the Bihar polls will be in the spreading of the virus but we could hope that it is now weaker than it was and best practices have been put in place. Trump should also be very careful, not just for his own health but those of his most ardent supporters as well.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
It is high time that the UN recognises India’s potential and its contribution to the organisation and makes it a permanent member of the Security Council
Addressing the historic 75th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi yet again made a forceful plea for reforming this international body and making the UN Security Council (UNSC) more representative and balanced. Modi had flagged this issue six years ago when he addressed the UNGA for the first time as India’s Prime Minister in September 2014. On that occasion, he told the member countries that no one country or group of countries can determine the course of the world. There has to be a genuine international partnership. This is not just a moral position but a practical reality and these efforts should begin with the UN. “We must reform the United Nations, including the Security Council, and make it more democratic and participative”, or else it could “face the risk of irrelevance” if it remained resistant to change. The Prime Minister was obviously emphasising India’s right to be a permanent member of the UNSC, a status enjoyed by the P-5 — US, UK, France, Russia and China — who are also armed with extraordinary veto powers.
He returned to this theme once again when he addressed the UNGA last month. Referring to the circumstances prevailing in 1945 when the UN came into being, he told his audience that members were now in a completely different era — the 21st century. Therefore, the international community must ask itself whether the character of the institution, constituted in 1945, was relevant even today? He spoke of the regard that the people of India have for the UN and said they wonder whether the reform process will ever reach its logical conclusion. “For how long will India be kept out of the decision-making structures of the United Nations?...When we were strong, we did not trouble the world; when we were weak, we did not become a burden on the world. How long will such a country have to wait?”
The Prime Minister was echoing the sentiments of 1.35 billion citizens of the country when he hinted that India’s patience was running thin. Indians find it difficult to fathom why their country is kept out, especially when it has such strong credentials. It is the world’s largest and most vibrant democracy with 911 million electors, of whom over 600 million exercised their franchise in 2019. It is also the most diverse nation in the world with unparalleled ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity and home to all the major religions in the world. Indians speak 121 languages and 270 dialects. Further, India accounts for 18 per cent of the global population and will overtake China and become the most populous nation by 2027. Add to this its economic and military strength — it is the fifth-largest economy and one of the top five military powers in the world. Finally, it is a founding member of the UN, one of the 26 signatories at the first conference in 1942 and has made a phenomenal contribution to the organisation’s peace-keeping efforts across the world. Are these not enough reasons for India to be a permanent member of the UNSC?
As proud citizens of the world’s largest and most vibrant democracy, Indians also have the right to demand that the UN remain faithful to its own fundamental postulates. Is it not strange that the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations reaffirms faith “in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small…” and yet, actively promotes a hierarchy of nations and consequently, of human beings? How can India, which has equality as a fundamental precept in its Constitution, accept this form of graded membership?
Further, Article 2 of the Charter says the UN is based on the sovereign equality of all members. How is this achieved when a nation with almost one-fifth of the global population is not a permanent member of the UNSC whereas two European nations — UK (67 million) and France (65 million), each with a population equivalent to just one of India’s 28 states (Karnataka) — are permanent members of the UNSC? Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter are also wholly undemocratic because even if two-thirds of the members of the UN agree to amend the Charter, any of the five permanent members of the UNSC can use its veto power to block the amendment. This is absolutely undemocratic and unworthy of being part of any civilised institution in the democratic world. Why should the world’s largest democracy put up with this? These articles enable members of the P-5 to play politics and stonewall reform. That is why the efforts of the G-4 (India, Brazil, Japan and Germany) to support each other’s bid for a permanent seat in the UNSC have not thus far fructified.
The international community must understand that India’s patience, despite all its philosophical underpinnings, is not inexhaustible and that there is a new India emerging — optimistic, self-confident and self-reliant (atmanirbhar). It is true that seven decades ago, given India’s economic plight after centuries of colonisation, it lacked the gumption to stand up and demand its rightful place. But that is not the India of today. This is not a tame India. This is a bold India. A billion-plus citizens of this nation are no longer willing to accept these inequities as part of their karma and reconcile themselves to the second-class status thrust on them 75 years ago.
India is shaking off the delusions of the past. It has shed its innocence and gullibility that was in full display during the “Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai” days and has realised that it must become strong and resilient to promote peace in its neighbourhood and the world. The Chinese are getting a taste of this, and as the momentum picks up, other nations too will begin to sense it. This is irreversible. Having nudged his countrymen towards this new thinking, Modi is sensing the change. That is why he made a specific reference to the aspirations of the people vis-à-vis UN reform. India will celebrate the 75th anniversary of its independence in 2022. The UN must use the occasion to redeem itself, acknowledge that democracy is the most civilised political system ever devised by man and invite India to the high table.
(The writer is an author specialising in democracy studies. Views expressed are personal)
The world community will have to wait anxiously and watch the simmering conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan for the next few weeks
While the global community was glued to eastern Ladakh and the South China Sea (SCS) as flashpoints that may endanger global peace due to growing Chinese belligerence, another conflict has emerged in the Caucasus region. This area lies between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, mainly occupied by Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and parts of southern Russia. The region is the lifeline of oil supply to neighbouring countries with major pipelines passing through here. It also serves as the border between Asia and Europe.
On September 27, a long-simmering conflict in the south Caucasus once again burst into open clashes between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The cause of the ongoing battle, which soon may erupt into an all-out war since both nations have declared martial law, is the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. The control of this enclave was ceded to Armenia in 1994 after a bloody separatist conflict.
Universally, Nagorno-Karabakh is accepted as part of Azerbaijan. Both countries have been fighting each other since then at irregular intervals. The latest provocation dates back to July this year when Armenia killed a general and other officers of Azerbaijan’s military in a missile strike, leading to a big uproar in Baku which swore to take revenge soon. Azerbaijan was buoyed by the immediate Turkish offer to prepare for the response.
Nagorno-Karabakh proper has an area of about 4,400 square kilometres but Armenian forces occupy large swathes of the adjacent territory. Long-simmering tensions between majority Christian Armenians seeking union with Armenia and mostly Muslim Azeris began boiling over as the Soviet Union began to disintegrate in its final years. The USSR collapsed in 1991 and the republics became independent nations. In late 1991, a majority of Armenian inhabitants declared independence from Azerbaijan with Armenia’s support. It led to the emergence of the Republic of Artsakh, which to date remains unrecognised.
The efforts of Azerbaijan to reimpose its authority led to a fight for ownership, soon converting into the bloodiest war between the two neighbours. The war saw atrocities on both sides. A 1994 ceasefire left Armenian and Azerbaijani forces facing each other across a demilitarised zone, where clashes are frequently reported. The region has since been under the control of Armenian forces, though it is still internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan, as stated earlier. International mediation, including United Nations resolutions, have failed to resolve the crisis.
The new flashpoint has one thing in common to the other two, and that is the expansionist ambitions of another ultra-nationalist leader, the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Ever since his ascendancy to power, he has embroiled Turkey militarily in neighbouring countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, including the eastern Mediterranean region. He is on the opposite side of Russia in both Syria and Libya, leading to regional rivalry. Turkey is also pressing territorial claims in disputes with Greece and Cyprus, thus creating alarm among its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies. It has a powerful military, which has also led Erdogan to view himself as the future leader of the Muslim world, displacing the traditional royal house of Saud. This is just like Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is dreaming to be the world leader replacing the US President. Erdogan is also preparing a non-Arab Muslim alliance with the active connivance of Pakistan. His growing assertiveness in the region has changed his nation’s power dynamics.
While all other nations like India, China, the US, France, Iran and the European Union (EU) have asked both countries to refrain from a full-fledged war and return to the negotiating table to resolve the issue through dialogue, Turkey and Pakistan have offered open support to Azerbaijan and egged it on to liberate the disputed enclave from Armenian control.
French President Emmanuel Macron has warned Turkey to refrain from sending jihadists as mercenaries to the troubled area. It has also been reported that Pakistan has already sent Al Qaeda and Taliban jihadists to the area along with one unit of regular soldiers. Pakistan, which is already known as the fountainhead of terror, wants to convert this region into another epicentre of jihadist terror like Afghanistan. The majority jihadists, despite being Sunnis, are willing to fight alongside the Shiite Azeris against Armenians because they consider it as a holy war between the Muslims and the Christians. While Vatican has also called for restraint, both Pakistan and Turkey are encouraging Azerbaijan to continue the fight and have expressed their solidarity towards Muslim brotherhood. Pakistan is also keen to develop the area into another zone of Muslim liberation like Palestine and Kashmir. Whether this has the covert support of China is not yet clear but both Turkey and Pakistan enjoy good relations with each other.
The geopolitics of the region is very complicated. Turkey and Pakistan have military alliances with Azerbaijan, while Armenia has a similar treaty with Russia, which has a military base in Armenia. Russia also enjoys good relations with Azerbaijan and is its major arms supplier. Russia, France and the US jointly chair the Minsk Group, which was founded in 1992 by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, now known as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to try and find a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. All the three nations have close ties with Armenia. Turkey, being an important NATO member, has caused an imminent crack in the organisation with France and the US inclined towards Armenia.
Armenia has responded to the peace call by the Minsk Group but Azerbaijan’s response is not yet known. Israel is an arms supplier to Azerbaijan but with Turkey openly supporting Azerbaijan and its newly-formed ties with Muslim nations in the Middle East, it has put Israel in a Catch-22 situation. Iran shares borders and is also friendly with both the nations. But in case of a religious war, it would have to decide to support Azerbaijan or stay neutral.
With global terror outfits moving into the area and more Muslim countries backing Azerbaijan, the situation is getting polarised. India, too, has a stake in the region. The North-South Corridor linking Mumbai to Moscow via Chabahar passes through Azerbaijan. India will not like the region to become another jihadist terror hub.
Outright war could put key pipelines at risk. Any direct involvement by Turkey will push Russia into the war. France has already warned Turkey. A direct attack on Armenia would invoke its defence pact with Russia and draw it into the conflict. In case of a Muslim versus Christian fight, many countries, including the EU, are likely to join, splitting the NATO. This would have repercussions beyond the region as well. If China decides to join its friends, Pakistan and Turkey, it may lead to a Third World War. But with China tied down in a confrontation with India and US-backed Taiwan, it is less likely.The world will have to wait anxiously and watch the happenings of the next two-three weeks to determine if 2020 will end peacefully or not. Yes, world peace is at stake.
(The author is a Jammu-based security and strategic analyst)
The renewed armed conflict has hogged global limelight because of the involvement of regional rivals Turkey and Russia. Now French role in the conflict has given it a new twist
The renewed conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the two former Soviet republics, heralds a new era of tension in the Caucasus region. This war is an absolute violation of the ceasefire agreement signed by the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia in October 2017 under the auspices of the Minsk Group in Geneva. The Minsk Group is a mediation group created by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to settle conflict by exploring all possible avenues in this two neighbouring nations. It is widely believed that the current hostilities point towards a total breakdown of the mediation efforts, increased militarisation by both the parties and finally, a failure of the international organisations to offer a plausible framework for settlement of the dispute.
The root of the war between these two countries is a self-declared region called “Nagorno-Karabakh”, which is claimed as part of their sovereign territories. Nagorno or Nagorno-Karabakh is the modern name of an area located in the Southern Caucasus region. The word “Karabakh” comes from the Turkish and Persian which means “Black Garden”. It dates back to Georgian and Persian sources from the 13th and 14th centuries. It refers to an Armenian principality called as Artsakh or Khatchenby the modern chroniclers.
This conflict dates back to nearly a century of recent political developments in the erstwhile USSR. In the 1920s, the then Soviet Government under Lenin established the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAR) within Azerbaijan. The NKAR consisted of 95 per cent ethnic Armenian population. Under the Soviet Bolshevik regime, the simmering tension between Azerbaijan and Armenia were kept under check by the powerful Russian Army. But the gradual collapse of the Communist regime of the USSR in the 1990s led to the rise of differences between these two bordering republics. In fact by 1988, the NKAR Legislature passed a historic resolution to join Armenia, knowing full well that the region is physically located within Azerbaijan. Those were the days, the world was about to witness the imminent fall of an order created by Lenin way back in 1917. And it all came with full chaos, confusion and reversal of the global power calculus. As tensions rose on both sides of the border in Armenia and Azerbaijan, Sumgait pogrom (1988), Baku pogrom (1990) and Khojaly Massacre (1992) took place, sending shock waves across the world. On December 31, 1991, the USSR was formally on the way to dissolution, and the autonomous region declared independence from Azerbaijan on January 6, 1992, inviting immediate trouble from both Armenia and Azerbaijan. The first war that took place between Azerbaijan and Armenia from 1988-94 saw the death of more than 30,000 people and the displacement of an estimated one million people. The NKAR has been traditionally inhabited by ethnic Christian Armenians and Muslim Turks. The biggest irony is that though Armenia fully backs the NKAR, it has never ever officially recognised the status of the region.
On the ground, what is happening is the death of hundreds of soldiers and civilians on both sides. The rival armies are accusing each other of shelling across the Line of Control, separating forces in the contested Nagorno-Karabakh region. Interestingly, the enclave is officially a part of Azerbaijan, but governed by ethnic Armenians so far.
What Azerbaijan people feel is that Armenia is simply obstructing peace in the region. Thus, many of them are urging Armenia to vacate their land as early as possible. In addition to the Nagorno area, it is believed that Armenia has so far occupied seven more cities of Azerbaijan. What goes around in Azerbaijan is that Karabakh is an integral part of it. However, Armenia does not accept it. The allegations of occupation leveled against Armenia are thought to be a massive media campaign by Azerbaijan to malign its global image.
There is every possibility that this Nagorno-Karabakh tinderbox might lead to a larger war, involving major powers such as Turkey, France and Russia. Meanwhile French President Emmanuel Macron warned Turkey of sending warlike signals to Armenia. Macron is promising more support to Armenia. In the beginning of this week, he aired his view: “I say to Armenia and to the Armenians, France will play its role.” This clearly indicates that in case of a full-blown war, France will play a decisive role. It must be noted here that hundreds of thousands of French people are of Armenian descent. On the other hand, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is fully ready to help Azerbaijan recover the enclave. In fact, Turkey is an ally of Azerbaijan and closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in solidarity with the NKAR, when the first set of conflicts broke out between the two nations from 1988-1994.
In fact, Russia’s role is very complex in the conflict. It plays diverse, but at times takes contradictory positions. Interestingly, Moscow offers Armenia with security guarantees through established bilateral ties and Collective Security Treaty Organizations. But this does not extend to the current combat zone of the NKAR which is globally recognised as a part of Azerbaijan. Further, Russia supplies weapons to both the countries and also the co-chair of the Minsk Group. For now, Moscow has called for a ceasefire, but unlike the previous clashes that took place between these two former republics, Putin regime is yet to call for a high-level meeting between the high profile politico-military leaders of the warring nations.
The UNSC urgent meet on Nagorno-Karabakh this week has strongly condemned the use of force. The members of the UNSC have backed Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ call to stop the fighting, deescalate tensions and resume talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia without delay. Earlier the leaders from both the nations brushed off peace talks and accused each other of blocking negotiations at the moment. Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev has made it clear that Baku is committed to negotiating a resolution but Armenia is obstructing the entire process. As Armenia publicly declares Nagorno Karabakh as its integral part, how could there be a discussion on the issue, Aliyev complaints. He has also reminded the international community that as per the principles brokered by the Minsk Group, “territories around the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region should be transferred to Azerbaijan”. Further Aliyev contends that if Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan claims that “Karabakh is Armenia and that we should negotiate with the so-called puppet regime of Nagorno-Karabakh, he is trying to break the format of negotiations that existed for 20 years”. If this is the background, undoubtedly, Armenia’s claim over the NKAR is highly contested. But Yerevan has entirely different claim on the disputed enclave that leaves no place for Baku to claim and fight for ever. But Pashinyan clearly stated that when fierce military fights are on, there is no question of negotiation or talks. It is good that he is vying for a compromise instead of a military solution. But he wanted an immediate end of aggression on the part of Azerbaijan towards both NKAR and Armenia. He then says, “We all perceive this as an existential threat to our nation, we basically perceive it as a war that was declared to the Armenian people and our people are now simply forced to use the right for self-defence.” This demonstrates where the war is heading to. Even the Azerbaijan President has vowed to fight on until Armenian forces leave the disputed territory.
Considering the ground realities, the war seems to be dragging for a longer period. How France plays its part will certainly make a huge difference in the current scenario. It’s time for Yerevan and Baku to look for pragmatic solutions instead of counting which world power is on their side. Both need to understand that they can’t change their borders unless in case of a natural disaster or an all out war to change the status of the NKAR. Beyond the Minsk Group initiatives, the UN must work out a framework under which both the warring parties and the NKAR representatives could meet.
(The writer is an expert on international affairs)
The US President and his wife, Melania Trump, have tested positive. Will he now change his views?
Many were incredulous that US President Donald Trump had contracted the Coronavirus when he tweeted that he and First Lady Melania had tested positive for the “Chinese Virus” as Trump refers to the Covid-19 infection. Some predicted that Trump was faking it in order to withdraw from the US Presidential elections on medical grounds. Others thought that he was faking it in order to prove to the public that the infection is mild and that his vigour and vitality are intact, and those panicking about the infection like Dr Anthony Fauci, the Presidential advisor on infectious diseases, are nothing but scare-mongers. Maybe, Trump is just one of those countless getting infected these days, and most countries, including India have proper protocols in place to manage the illness, which is why fatality rates are dropping significantly. The actions of the US Defence Forces, managed from the Pentagon, however, brought into stark relief these conspiracy theories with the US Air Force putting its airborne command centre EA-6B aircraft into the air. This plane ensures Government continuity in case of a nuclear strike and with the US adopting a bipartisan attitude of belligerence against China, this was also to send a message to any nation opposing it.
Trump will most likely have access to the best healthcare money can buy if he is indeed ill, because no matter what people say about his relationship with the truth, one should assume that people do not lie about their health, or rather falling prey to a pandemic. Also, given that the US makes its national leaders’ health a matter of public discussion, it would be almost impossible to fake the illness. This just proves that it remains important for everyone of us to continue to practise safe hygiene practices, meaning wearing masks, continuing social and physical distancing, washing our hands frequently and using sanitisers. While many people are indulging in “revenge travel,” now that flights and hotels are up and running, we just cannot afford to be lax. As Deep Kalra, Chief Executive of online travel agency MakeMyTrip, says, many resorts in and around major cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru were fully booked for the long weekend we are currently in. Trump is also proof that this disease, like any other airborne infectious disease, makes no distinctions about who to infect. Hope he recovers and revises his controversial views on the pandemic and acknowledges its seriousness.
The live televised battles between candidates make the US stand out but at times they can be in shambles
Back in 1960, when the concept of live television was still unique and one where the United States had already grabbed a sizeable lead, the fledgling television networks of the nation tried something new — organise a debate between the candidates of the two parties. Back then it was John F Kennedy versus Richard Nixon and while today we think Kennedy won by a landslide, the 1960 election was controversial and close, a precursor to the problems that the US had in 2000 and 2016. Kennedy was the underdog and while he is today remembered as one of the most influential modern American Presidents, it was actually his performance in the televised debate where he came across as calm, confident and reassured the American public that his lack of political experience was not a challenge. Nixon, who had a slight fever on the day of the debate and was visibly sweating under the studio lights, was seen as lacking confidence. That debate set the political template in the US and while many other nations have tried the formula, few have managed to pull it off.
However, the debate between the current US President Donald Trump and his presumptive challenger Joe Biden, the former US Vice-President under Barack Obama, was an unmitigated disaster. If you can imagine two 70 plus-year-old men going at each other with a 50-year-old trying to control it, you kind of get the picture. This was not supposed to be a drawing room argument but it felt like one. Worse still, at times it felt like you were watching two panellists on a popular English news channel in India with stupid arguments learnt from Whatsapp. It made the world look on in horror at who will have his fingers on the world’s largest military arsenal of conventional and nuclear weapons. Sure, Chris Wallace, the debate moderator, let control of the debate slip from his hands and allowed Trump the usage of the bully pulpit, but let us all be clear, while Trump did not lose the debate, nobody really won. Far from the class and style of debates, something like this might have put more people off proper debates and even democracy. In 60 years, the US has come a long way indeed.
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month