Each of us has to embrace biodiversity-based products in our lives. Not only will they be an economical option but also the healthier one
There is no better day than the International Biological Diversity Day to remember that we are a part of nature, not separate from it. Ancient seers of India described this relationship as Vasudeva Kutumbakham (one universal family) that supports and sustains each other, right from the humble earthworm to the mighty elephant. We learnt over our 10,000-year civilisational history, lessons from planetary consciousness and celebrated the inter-dependence of all life and our role as stewards and children of Mother Nature.
Our ancestors toiled for centuries so that we could be the beneficiaries of diverse, climate-resilient and nutritious seeds. As a result, India today has the largest diversity of plants and foods and the country alone accounted for over 2,00,000 varieties of rice. We honoured seeds, right from barley to millet, with sacred rituals, for filling our stomachs and bestowing upon us health. We pray to nine goddesses during Navratri and offer them each a sacred seed. From birth to death, our biodiversity is conserved in our rituals.
In many communities in India, brides still carry to their husband’s home the gifts of native seeds and sacred spices like turmeric and so on. All communities across India, but more particularly tribals, have forms of biodiversity entwined with their daily lives and sacred rituals. In fact, sugarcane in Sanskrit is “ikshu” and the dynasty of the mythological King Ram was Ikshvaku. Isn’t this an uncanny coincidence?
The animal family was not left out either, we sanctified them as companions or steeds of gods and goddesses. Even the most hated pest, the rat, is associated with Lord Ganesh. The sub-continental civilisation saw beyond the anthropocentric myopia and valued each being as sacred, for each one of them contributed to the larger wheel of life. But sadly, these were just “pagan rituals or superstitions” for the officers of the East India Company. With the mighty gunboat and lust for gold, the colonist birthed a class of compradors, who focussed on the reversal of our ancient ways of life.
They infected us with a virus — the conquest of nature, which was contradictory not just to the Indian way of life but to all civilisations across the world (including the pagan traditions of Europe, which were repressed during the Great Inquisition in medieval Europe).
Right from the native tribes of the Americas to the Chinese, all affirmed that human life is a sub-part of nature. And with the age of imperialism began the great fall from Eden into desperate hell of pillaging, looting and rape of the Earth and all her living beings for the profit of the great pirate overlords.
But is the conquest of nature over? No, the conquest has evolved. Instead of the East India Company, we have India Inc. and larger behemoth agri-giants that survive on the plunder of the Earth and on bio-piracy. India, the land of abundance and diversity, is losing its true wealth — our connection with our biodiversity, our seeds, our medicinal plants and the genetic diversity of our animals.
For instance, from the Gir to Ongal cows, we have destroyed our cattle wealth with artificial insemination and sacrificed the Nandi bull to the tractor. We have made oxen redundant in our system of agriculture.
The diversity of the thali, too, has shrivelled to a handful of crops and sub-varieties of fruits, cereals and vegetables. Millets and local varieties have disappeared from our diet and have been replaced by commercial varieties, while our fields have become a eulogy to monoculture cropping. It had taken thousands of years to evolve each variety and crop and yet in little less than 50 years, we have destroyed generations of breeding.
But at the national level, there are greater threats. Indian Plant Genetic Resources (PGR), rated among the highest in the world, are being pirated abroad. Sometimes due to laxity of enforcers and other times illegally. Nevertheless treaties like The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) are trying to bully India into surrendering all our PGR for corporate exploitation, while receiving minimal remuneration and benefits for the communities that have co-evolved these plants and seeds. There is also an attempt to subvert our Biodiversity Act and undermine the National Biodiversity Authority.
International seed companies, including Chinese ones, are controlling 100 per cent subsidiaries in India, accessing strategic PGR and exporting parent lines of our varieties to their nations. Meanwhile Indian companies can’t even own firms in China, Thailand and so on, forget exporting parent lines of varieties.
We need to have a more nationalistic Foreign Direct Investment policy especially dealing with our PGR as it is a treasure trove that will prepare us to face challenges such as climate change.
The next policy step to conserve diversity is to have a strong protection of farmers’ rights to breed and co-evolve newer varieties. As the theme “Our Solutions are in Nature”, suggests, we must also harness the wild varieties and land races for meeting newer challenges. But this should be done sustainably, involving local communities and farmers instead of patented technological alternatives, which are expensive and promote profiteering.
MS Swaminathan, father of the Green Revolution in India, many times stressed on how the country’s biodiversity has the potential to meet all of our needs, we don’t need gene modifications or other genome editing interventions like CRISPR and so on. We must look towards nature and her abundance for solutions.
Each of us has to embrace biodiversity-based products in our lives. Not only will it be an economical option but also the healthier one. Starting from our plate, we can all include one millet meal or local varieties of rice/wheat apart from basmati, and trust me, there are hundreds of aromatic, medicinal and tasty varieties available in each city and village. This will increase the biodiversity of our gut and improve health.
We need to also bring back local native vegetables and prefer seasonal and locally-grown greens over cold storage ones. For processed foods, we again must buy as much as we can of biodiversity- based products and support native tribes. For our clothes, too, we need to end the hegemony of Bt Cotton. It is about time that Indians, like other more conscious citizens, choose cheaper alternate fabrics and support handloom and sustainable clothings collectives.
In dealing with other challenges, we must involve processes such as bio-mimicry and evolve technologies that work with the Earth and not against her. Circular and non-polluting economical policies are the need of the hour.
Finally, each thing we eat, touch, feel are all transformed nature so we need to reject the false separation from nature. The problems and solutions are both part of nature. What we understand as problems are so because they risk human survival but may not bother nature so much.
The true solution lies in awareness. We need to embrace our Vasudeva Kutumbhakam and bring back biodiversity and sacredness into our lives. We need to dispel war-mongering against nature for profit and embrace the abundance she provides. We ought to change our behaviour and our language (which treats nature as dead and an object). We need to remove the “it” to denote nature and replace it with “her” as the goddess she truly is.
(Writer: Indra Shekhar Singh; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
The new political map and a road to Lipulekh have sown fresh seeds of discord whose principal beneficiary is Beijing. Nimbleness was needed from New Delhi in defusing the crisis
Already riding high, China has used the Corona pandemic to extend its political influence in Nepal. Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke to Nepalese President Bidhya Devi Bhandari and inquired about the COVID-19 situation, despatched flight loads of succour and staved off the collapse of the Government over there. Then on May 9, Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated a new Indian road to the disputed Lipulekh, triggering off a political storm in Nepal. This was accompanied by protests and the customary exchange of diplomatic notes. Indian Army Chief Gen MM Naravane, who is the honorary General of Nepal Army, in response to a question on the protests said, “Nepal’s protest over India’s road in Lipulekh might be at the behest of someone else”, alluding to China, though it could also have been Pakistan. Last year in November, there was a tsunami of protests when India reproduced a map depicting new political boundaries in Jammu & Kashmir, including Kalapani, an area claimed by Nepal in its territory.
In the lull before a second spike in the territorial issue, a week-long political charade around May Day, to dethrone Nepalese Prime Minister KP Oli, fizzled out as his bete noire, the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) executive chairman, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda,’ switched sides and let Oli claim victory. In turn, Oli promised to make his political foe and party vice-chairman Bam Dev Gautam a lawmaker.
It was China and not the traditional player in Nepal, India, which came to the rescue of an embattled Oli. Sensing internal crisis within the ruling NCP and the Oli Government, Beijing’s popular envoy in Kathmandu, Hou Yanqi, followed upon Xi’s 45-minute-long conversation on April 27 with his Nepalese counterpart Bhandari. What followed next were mediations for the next two days, meeting with Bhandari, Oli, Dahal, former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and according to one report, even with Sher Bahadur Deuba, the leader of the Nepali Congress Opposition party. By May 2 evening, at the fateful Central secretariat meeting of the NCP where Dahal has a majority, surprisingly, he declared a truce. He called for party unity when it was he who had asked Oli to step down naming Madhav Nepal as his replacement three days earlier at the same forum. Friends of India saw the rescinding of Madhav Nepal’s (sometimes jokingly called Madhav India) name as the Prime Minister as a defeat for us.
Kathmandu fears China’s new political mantra of compliance, which was recently demonstrated in the admonition of the editor of the Kathmandu Post by the Chinese Embassy. This was not so in mid-2016 when China valiantly tried to prevent Dahal from breaking away from the Oli-led coalition Government but very briefly months later, India succeeded in orchestrating his exit with the lure of premiership in a Deuba-Dahal Government. It is another matter that even as part of this Government, Dahal surreptitiously entered the Beijing-inspired Left alliance, which was expected to sweep the federal, provincial and local polls that followed. In this new “Great Game” in Nepal between India and China, Beijing demonstrably has an upper hand.
It is worth recalling that during the pre-2006 people’s revolution and civil war periods, Chinese diplomats in Kathmandu, while alluding to New Delhi, would claim that Beijing does not interfere in any country’s internal affairs. They would describe Dahal-Maoists as “anti-state rebels”, “miscreants” and “hijackers” of Mao’s fair name. After the Maoists came to power in 2008, Beijing conveniently discovered ideological identity and congruity with them, saying all was fair in love and war.
In contrast, India has had a monopoly in making and unseating Prime Ministers as well as preventing their appointments. Like in 2009, after Prime Minister Dahal was removed from office, he was never allowed to become the premier again till 2016, when he was thought to have been tamed. During the decade of Constitution-writing, Madhav Nepal and Baburam Bhattarai, both considered to be friends of India, became the Prime Minister and so did Jhala Nath Khanal. But Khanal, who’s never passionate about India, was not invited to New Delhi on a State visit.
Oli, once an Indian blue-eyed boy, has risen to become the most powerful Prime Minister and party chairman of Nepal on a wicket of nationalism and anti-India sentiment following the economic blockade of 2015. China’s help in forging first the Left alliance and then the merger of the two Left parties ensured Oli’s sputnik rise. Lord John Dalberg-Acton’s dictum that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely fits the Oli story well as he sits in Baluwatar (the Prime Minister’s red-stone residence) on a gilded chair under his own towering portrait at the back. In designer clothes, he appears to be in the pink of health even after a second kidney transplant.
Dahal and Oli joined the battle early following a gentleman’s power-sharing agreement, whose existence Oli denied. Mutual sniping was halted when Bhandari brokered an agreement last year, which nominally elevated Dahal as the executive chairman of the NCP even as Oli became its co-chairman but remained a spoke in Dahal’s wheel. What followed next were widespread reports of disillusionment and frustration with Oli’s autocratic style and shenanigans capped with misgovernance and corruption. This, even during the purchase of medical equipment in the midst of the pandemic, passage of two controversial political ordinances, which he withdrew and in transacting due to which Bhandari became complicit. Through such high-handedness, Oli sought to garner more power: Secure two-thirds majority in Parliament and make Constitutional appointments with simple majority.
That is when on April 24, the proverbial straw broke the camel’s back and Dahal triggered off plan Alpha — leadership change — which has been in the works for some time now. It envisages replacing Oli with Madhav Nepal as the Prime Minister, appointing Dahal as the undisputed party executive chairman and Khanal in time as the President of Nepal. While Oli kept clutching at the straws at the party central secretariat meetings and divulged his own leadership reshuffle plan, he sent a May Day call to Yanqi. During the crucial secretariat meeting on May 2, Dahal did a somersault, declaring the importance of party unity and letting Oli stay as the Prime Minister as the latter promised to make Gautam a law-maker soon. That was a demotion for Gautam as earlier, Oli had offered him premiership to wriggle out of the crisis.
Dahal has pressed the pause button on plan Alpha, surprising its key players. Undoubtedly, there will be rewards for Dahal from Oli and Beijing. The ruling political class has shadowboxed what Nepalese are calling a political Corona instead of seriously combating the COVID-19 pandemic, thus proving that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
Kalapani and Lipulekh are part of a disputed package revived in 2015 after a trade agreement was signed between China and India. The new political map and a road to Lipulekh have sown fresh seeds of discord, whose principal beneficiary is Beijing. Nimbleness was needed from New Delhi in defusing the crisis.
(Writer: Ashok K Mehta; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
If the US goes rabidly protectionist, and others follow, then our Make in India project could suffer a body blow
That the Coronavirus has had a major negative impact on world economies is an undisputed fact. Now, the next assault on economies will be the wall of protectionism that will come up across the globe as leaders struggle to provide jobs to their citizens and the world wakes up to the economic dangers of being a global village with inextricably interlinked manufacturing and supply chains collapsing. The last has been partly because of prolonged disruptions caused by COVID-enforced lockdowns and partly due to a trust deficit in value chains originating in China. Japan has already announced that it is pulling out its manufacturing activities from China and the US is doing the same. And we are already seeing the first glimpse of protectionism with the US President laying down the law for companies like Apple. Donald Trump, in his usual blustering and aggressive style, has bluntly declared that he could levy new taxes on American companies that move their manufacturing bases from China to any country other than the US. He has never made any bones about his protectionist agenda and has time and again asked American firms to shift their manufacturing to the US to help create more jobs, a move that resonates with his agenda of ‘Make America Great Again.’ Particularly in an election year.
This protectionist attitude is going to deal a body blow to India’s plans to woo firms away from China and emerge as the next manufacturing hub as many firms mull expanding their manufacturing bases to more than one country to avoid a repeat of the present disruptions. In fact, Prime Minister Narendra Modi talked about making India a strong part of the global supply chain and the Government is developing a land pool double the size of Luxembourg to lure businesses moving out of China. New Delhi has even asked missions abroad to look for firms scouting for options to invest outside China. State Governments, too, are busy evolving their own programmes for bringing in FDI. If all nations begin to follow the path shown by Trump, it will be a hard and long toil for India where economic healing is concerned as it might witness a U-shaped recovery instead of the V-shaped one that we are hoping to see. If that happens, India will have no way out but to respond with protectionism of its own. So the world will be in a lockdown in more ways than one.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Muslim scholars have a host of explanations for their followers about the causes of natural catastrophes like the present pandemic
Last month, Tariq Jamil, a prominent evangelist, was roundly criticised for insinuating that the deadly Covid-19 pandemic was because of the misdeeds of “immodest women.” Over the years, Jamil has gathered a significant following among segments of the country’s urban middle classes and also Pakistan’s sporting and showbiz circles. He had been invited by Prime Minister Imran Khan to speak during a telethon raising money to address the economic challenges posed by the pandemic in Pakistan. The event was broadcast live by a private TV channel.
Many of Jamil’s middle-class fans find his soft-spoken demeanour endearing, even though, of and on, some of his statements do raise a few eyebrows. Nevertheless, as a commentator on Twitter said, “It was only a matter of time when this likeable preacher would end up sounding like any other self-appointed scion of morality.” What I understand from this is that the nearer one gets to certain points of power, the more likely it is for him/her to lose their bearings in a bid to please patrons. Especially if these points of power include a Government that seemingly measures loyalty with varied degrees of sycophancy exhibited by its patrons or a fickle media that is as quick to kick one off the pedestal as it is to put them there.
Jamil himself understands well where his traction lies. It is in the way he has positioned himself: As someone who does not unsettle middle-class sensibilities and ideas of morality, unlike preachers such as Khadim Hussain Rizvi. That’s why, within days of making his controversial statement, Jamil offered an apology. Many of his fans belonging to the entertainment industry and some TV anchors almost immediately launched an attack on those who criticised him. Even Shireen Mazari, the current Federal Minister of Human Rights wasn’t spared; she had denounced Jamil for blaming female immodesty for the outbreak of the Coronavirus. The irony is that Mazari belongs to the same Government whose PM not only invited Jamil to his telethon, but remained silent during his tirade.
Another interesting bit to come out of the debate was a sudden realisation of a somewhat not-so-sudden phenomenon: There is an increasing number of show business personalities from India and Pakistan who are often quick to defend decisions or statements which — in another little ironic twist — do not bode well for their professions.
In this is a terrific opportunity for anthropologists or even psychologists to study a phenomenon which some believe is pregnant with concepts such as the “cult mindset” and the so-called Stockholm Syndrome. Nevertheless, Jamil is wise enough to realise that many of his less excitable, or less knee-jerk, middle-class admirers were taken aback by what he said; they thought he was “different”. Therefore, an apology became necessary and, no matter what the motive behind it, it should be commended.
So what is a preacher to say in times of natural calamities and pandemics? The best they can do is lead a collective prayer and ask the Almighty to give relief to those who are suffering. It is a comforting exercise that is entirely spiritual in nature.
But as often happens, a majority of preachers make it their job to explain the reasons behind natural calamities. Be it an earthquake, a flood or a pandemic, the reasons provided are always centred around obscenity, immodesty and so on. And women remain a constant.
According to a report in a July 1967 edition of Dawn, a group of preachers was quoted as saying that the damaging monsoon rains in Karachi that year were due to the Ayub Khan regime’s “secular policies” and “rampant sale of alcoholic beverages in the city.” From then on, until 1977, when newspapers again carried similar quotes during that year’s devastating monsoon rains in the city, the fact is, such “explanations” got very little column space.
The practice of inviting clerics on TV and asking them to explain the cause of a natural calamity was first introduced in the 1980s during the Zia dictatorship. This practice then continued unabated. After the 2005 earthquake in the country’s northern regions, private TV channels were flooded with preachers blaming the earthquake on “the culture of obscenity that Pervez Musharraf’s Government had been promoting”.
Preachers who are asked why a natural calamity took place often feel pressured to say something that is populist in tone. Just praying for safety and relief, they believe, will not get them any traction. However, there is a lesser-known concept in Islamic theology through which they can still stand out, without sounding misogynistic, reactionary or ill-informed.
Islamic scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi used this concept recently when he was asked to comment on Jamil’s statement. Ghamidi, a respected theologian who, interestingly, has a following within the same socio-economic class that Jamil derives his admirers from, said that it was silly to attribute social causes to natural calamities. He then added that floods, earthquakes and pandemics were all natural occurrences of a system that God has engineered. Scientists, too, understand these calamities as natural events due to the manner in which the universe operates.
By saying this, Ghamidi was reinvigorating an idea that was first conceptualised by the great 19th-century Muslim scholar Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, who is often appreciated as being the pioneer of “Muslim modernism” in South Asia. Like his contemporaries in Egypt, Turkey and Iran, Khan produced scholarship which attempted to find a place for Islam in the context of modernity and science that was sweeping the world at the time. He was of the view that, since Islam was inherently progressive and rational, it was highly compatible with science. One way he tried to demonstrate this was through a concept he called “naicari.” He coined this Urdu term from the English word nature. In an essay for the 2019 Cambridge anthology on Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Professor of History David Lelyveld writes that, “To Khan, the universe and our world were run by an ingenious system constructed by God and that natural phenomenon, both benign or otherwise, is part of God’s creation.”
To Khan, biology, physics and chemistry were the best ways to understand how nature works and, thus, fully appreciate the genius of God’s creation. In one of his essays on Naicari, Khan writes that anything which contradicts the laws of nature cannot be part of Islam’s sacred texts, because these laws were designed by God. Therefore, according to him, the cause and explanation of a natural phenomenon need to be compatible with the laws of nature set in motion by God.
So what Ghamidi did was indirectly suggest that pandemics and other calamities were part and parcel of how nature works, and nature is what God created. Therefore, an explanation that is outside this context should be taken with a pinch of salt.
(Writer: Nadeem Paracha; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
All our future financial and economic systems should value fixing of broken relationships with nature to minimise the potential risks of such pandemics in times to come
Lockdown, social distancing, restricted train services, no flights, taxis, job losses, salary cuts and no business! Could we, the so-called superior species, inhabiting “Mother Earth”, empowered with knowledge, research and innovations, ever have imagined in our wildest dreams such a scenario of hardships, horrors, threats and uncertainties at the beginning of a new decade? Whether the global crisis brought on by COVID-19 is rooted in the disruption of ecosystems, illegal wildlife trade and so on, or embedded in the race for world economic supremacy through some sort of biological warfare, is hard to tell. Debates will continue without conclusive evidence. However, while rebuilding the ruptured economy and redefining the pathways for future development, we need to remember that an invisible virus has the power to stop us in our tracks. It has crippled the economies of the world, curbed lifestyles, disrupted supply chains, threatened our very survival by bringing large sections of populations in all geographies under the threat of extreme poverty and hunger. It has widened social inequalities, triggered reverse migration and emerging social unrests of different dimensions.
However, due to the pandemic our rivers are cleaner. We are breathing clean air. The sky is a clear blue in cities that have not seen it like this in many years. We can actually see the stars now and snow-clad mountains are visible from distant cities after decades.
All of a sudden we have peacocks dancing in the streets, an increasing number of birds chirping in the trees and surprise visits from precious wildlife in cities and towns all over the world.
As we wait for a breakthrough by the scientific community working hard to come out with a vaccine or drug to combat the virus, we have ample time to think about life. What future do we want? What are the lessons learnt from this outbreak? Are we willing to take responsibility for our action in bringing this virus upon the world?
Recent pandemics are a direct consequence of human activity, particularly our global financial and economic systems that value economic growth at any cost. The Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, CK Mishra, has shot off a letter to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, emphasising that, “There is a consensus among scientists that a rise in zoonotic diseases like Nipah, Avian Influenza, Zika and Coronavirus is linked to the loss of biodiversity and forests. Hence we are urging corporates to invest in biodiversity conservation.”
The vast illegal wildlife trade, humanity’s excessive intrusion into nature, unsustainable extraction of natural resources and extreme anthropogenic pollution sources are to be blamed for the disconnect.
So what seeds are to be sown now for a sustainable era? Certainly, we want a cleaner, greener future and a more equitable world for everyone. We need to halt further destruction of nature. Future financial and economic systems should value fixing of broken relationships with nature to minimise potential risks of such pandemics in times to come. COVID-19 also forces us to look into the way we develop our cities; the way we grow our food; the way we develop businesses; the way we respect and value nature; the way we conserve species; the way we degrade natural resources; the way we consume; the way we recycle waste and the way we inhabit and care for planet Earth. We need to fix our broken relationship with nature.
During and post the global pandemic, businesses in all geographies will be striving to ensure their short and long-term viability. While their immediate efforts will focus on revival, renewal and reconstruction, companies must also continue to think and act for the long-term. Recovery and reconstruction packages and new business models involving multi-trillion dollars will be rolled out. New normals in terms of business opportunities and practices will emerge. In any version of a sustainable future, there will be a fundamental need for companies to integrate circular economy principles. Respective industries have to introspect and redefine their role in valuing, restoring and protecting the natural world on which we all depend. Sectors involving agriculture, airlines, transport, fossil fuel-dependent energy sectors, mining and so on, need to adopt ecological ethics and morality in business practices.
Self-compliant and redefined business practices should pledge for zero pollution of water resources, ambient air, efficient waste recycling, land degradation neutrality and adhering to the strictest environmental standards. Citizens also need to be responsible by adopting sustainable consumption lifestyles that include transport, food, mobility, housing aimed at minimising our carbon footprints.
A global “one health” approach needs to be broadened on the principle of “human health can be ensured only through care of nature, Mother Earth and the surrounding ecosystems’ health.” The health of people is intimately connected to the health of wildlife, the health of livestock and the health of the environment. It would be great if we could at least preserve what is left of nature.
Headlines like, “Planet Earth is under repair”, “Mother Earth is under shutdown” also remind us of our responsibility to ensure a safer, cleaner and habitable planet for our survival, otherwise nature has its own ways to address and punish defaulters. While nature has tremendous destructive powers, it has immense healing powers, too. Protecting nature is an investment in our future.
“I am not polluting.” “I will not degrade nature.” “I will love wildlife.” “I will not allow others to harm nature.” These should be the guiding principles of ecological ethics for everyone. Humanity has to coexist with nature.
Whatever new narrative and norms will emerge post-Coronavirus, the above basic principles of ecological ethics and care for nature need to be integrated into everything that we do. This means all stakeholders, including policymakers, governance frameworks, businesses, communities in all geographies, need to pledge for a sustainable future and a better reconstructed world to avoid probable risks of re-emergence of such pandemics.
(Writer: Vivek Saxena; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Unless the US administration develops a plan with the backing of claimant countries to normalise the situation in the South China Sea, China will continue to strengthen its grip in the region
At a time when the entire world is grappling with the Coronavirus pandemic, China has ramped up its aggressive expansionism in the South China Sea, raising concern not only among its smaller neighbours but in India as well. A slew of decisions taken in recent times, like the establishment of two new districts of Xisha and Nansha to administer the contested Spratly and Paracel island chains, the naming of 80 islands and other geographical features in the South China Sea and some other immediate developments are all aimed to further consolidate claim and physical control over disputed areas. Experts see this as an attempt to impose Chinese domestic law. This, despite the protests from other claimants.
Certainly, with its rise as a military and economic power, China aims to establish full control over the waters of the South China Sea, reversing its commitment to peacefully resolve dispute in this area with other claimant countries, including Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines and Brunei. The Xi Jinping Government has already extensively militarised the South China Sea. There has been increased patrolling by the Chinese Coast Guard and Navy forces, several man-made islands have been developed and anti-ship cruise missiles, anti-aircraft batteries and missile defences have been deployed.
But to assume that China’s rise as a military and economic power alone enabled it to navigate an assertive action plan in the South China Sea would be wrong. Other factors have pushed the region to the current flashpoint. One that has given a boost to China’s sinister move to make this region its exclusive zone is the complete absence of an effective and collective response from other claimant countries.
Not once did the Association of Southeast Asian Countries (Asean) issue a strong warning to China for trying to unilaterally alter the geographical dynamics of the South China Sea. Differences among the Asean members have always been persistent on containing the rise of China. More to the point, since Asean works on the basis of consensus, China has been successful in creating a divide among its member countries on the issue of the South China Sea by providing financial support to some.
Recall how Asean behaved as a dead institution when in 2016, China completely disregarded a verdict of the international tribunal, which concluded that there was no legal basis for it to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the “nine-dash line” and accepted the claims of the Philippines. This regional grouping’s record is also dismal as far as the development of a code of conduct with China is concerned. Consider the Philippines’s act. Instead of aggressively making efforts to issue the implementation of the 2016 decision of the international tribunal against China, it decided to compromise with Beijing, with the intent to attract huge financial assistance. At the same time, institutions of global governance, too, failed in forcing China to behave as a normal and responsible State.
The US’ incoherent policy is no less responsible for the current impasse in the region. Both former US President Barack Obama and the current one, Donald Trump, failed to develop a comprehensive policy to address the crisis in the South China Sea. Thus, while Obama’s half-hearted policy of Pivot to Asia could not stop China from developing several artificial islands, Trump’s trade war with China has consumed four years.
Consequently, his vision of promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific is still at the nascent stage. True, the Trump administration made efforts to boost Taiwan’s military power, with the US Navy conducting more freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea than in the past. But these isolated efforts can hardly produce an effective deterrence against China.
This is amply clear from the fact that the Xi Jinping Government has consolidated its control over the strategic locations between the Indian and Pacific Oceans through which one-third of the global maritime trade passes every year. Beijing has purposefully followed the policy of not allowing other regional littoral countries to have free movement in the South China Sea to secure full access to huge oil and gas reservoirs in the region. It is also threatening outsider countries, including the US, to not enter the South China Sea. What is more, China is doing all these things with complete impunity.
Interestingly, the last few months have witnessed a remarkable change in the South China Sea region in the sense that a few countries — Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines — have become much more critical about Chinese activities in the region than ever before. In early April, a Chinese Coast Guard vessel reportedly sank a Vietnamese fishing boat off the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea and in a rare display of bilateral solidarity, Manila supported Hanoi in its protest to Beijing.
In mid-April, a Chinese survey ship, Haiyang Dizhi 8, with Coast Guard and maritime militia escorts, moved into a region in the South China Sea — proximate to Malaysia — to disrupt a gas drilling operation by a Malaysian oil company, leading to a protest by Kuala Lumpur.
Undoubtedly, while the recent collective move by these claimant countries to push China on the South China issue is encouraging, it is equally true that unless the US administration develops a clear plan with the backing of other claimant countries to normalise the situation in the South China Sea, China will continue to strengthen its grip over the region.
While Taiwan has indeed taken a pragmatic approach to deal with the current situation by appealing to all parties to resolve the dispute with peaceful means, the Tsai Government also needs to explore all options to protect itself from China’s aggression, especially when Beijing’s increased involvement in the South China Sea has already posed a serious concern for Taiwan.
India is unlikely to be immune from China’s belligerence. Take the case of Huawei 5G competition as an example. It is, thus, imperative for the Narendra Modi Government to cooperate with others to push back Chinese tactics.
(Writer: Sumit Jha; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
There is some merit in suggestions by ex-SC judge on rotational lockdowns in States to maintain green norms
As we enjoy clean, blue skies and bird song from the confines of our homes, a former Supreme Court judge has suggested that we not fritter away the environmental advantage we have gained during the 53-day-long shutdown. Justice Deepak Gupta has recommended that we reduce traffic and industrial effluents and impose a 15-day lockdown in different parts of the country on a rotational basis each year as this will lead to cleaner air and water. And help us meet environment conservation benchmarks that we have been dilly-dallying on. Or working on in a rather piecemeal manner. Justice Gupta was on the green bench of the apex court for three years before he retired on May 6. And he minced no words, saying that while in some cases, the Environment Ministry was proactive in implementing the orders of the Supreme Court, when there were clashes pertaining to big industries and issues of environmental clearances and permissions, there was a “lack of willingness on their part to implement our order” especially when “the governments want big industrial units to be set up in a particular region.” At least COVID-19 has opened us up to the possibility of nurturing our environment while not compromising development. Indeed the pandemic achieved in less than a month what the Supreme Court could not do in the last 35 years. Reports by the European Space Agency reveal that by early February, levels of air pollution causing nitrogen dioxide (NO2) over cities and industrial areas in Asia and Europe were 40 per cent lower than in the same period last year. NASA measured a steep drop in China’s NO2 emissions and said the NO2 pollution over New York and other major metropolitan areas in north-eastern USA was 30 per cent lower. In the UK, too, NO2 pollution in some cities fell by as much as 60 per cent. India saw similar advantages. A few weeks into the lockdown, cities like Delhi, Bengaluru, Kolkata and Lucknow saw their average Air Quality Index (AQI) staying below 50. In fact, in the first week of April, there were reports of residents of Jalandhar, Punjab being able to see the Dhauladhar mountain range nearly 213 kilometres away after decades. By the end of April, people in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, could see the snow-capped peaks of the Himalayas from their rooftops. The Ganga and the Yamuna rivers have also benefitted and according to the Central Pollution Control Board, the average water quality of 27 points of the Ganga is now suitable for bathing and propagation of wildlife and fisheries.
So as we begin easing our lives post-pandemic, we have to ensure that we don’t lose these environmental gains. Not just because of the climate change or pollution crisis but because clean air is our ally in fighting the Coronavirus. Pollution helps viruses do their job better as the dirty air damages our respiratory systems and makes us more susceptible. So, whether India Inc likes it or not, in order to reduce the spread of epidemics in the future, cutting down air pollution now will be a key conditionality. So, as India tries to get back on its feet economically, better implementation of the environmental, transport and industry regulations will have to be a priority to ease the detrimental impacts of human activity on the environment. The lockdown has showed us a way of workarounds. Or the possibilities that we wouldn’t want to contemplate otherwise. Sustainable development is the only way forward because if we don’t respect nature, we have to be ready to bear the consequences when it strikes back. As we are experiencing, it can be fiercely brutal.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Religious bigotry can sometimes even unknowingly colour our sense of community and we end up alienating people
In 2006, I was invited for lunch by a close relative, Yawar, at his spacious bungalow in Karachi’s posh DHA area. When I arrived, I found him sitting with a dozen or so serious-looking gentlemen in his drawing room. After getting up to greet me, Yawar quietly apologised, saying that since he was the chairman of the area’s residents committee, he could not decline a request by other members for an urgent meeting.
In fact, out of politeness and also to keep me occupied, he asked me to attend the meeting too.
The matter being discussed had to do with some members demanding that the monthly committee meetings be held at a fixed venue instead of at their homes as this inconvenienced the families of the members.
Various options were being aired in this regard. The Golf Club, the Creek Club, the Karachi Gymkhana and so on, until one Zahoor sahib suggested that the committee start holding its meetings at the area’s mosque every third Friday of the month, after the jumma namaz (Friday prayer) was over.
Instantly a consensus was reached. Well, almost. Because three men remained conspicuously silent. Finally, one of them, Munawwar sahib, a man who owned a chain of utility stores across the country, spoke, “Friends, how do you plan to get Henry sahib and Anosh sahib into the mosque?”
Both Henry and Anosh, who were members of the committee, were non-Muslims. While Henry sahib was a Christian, Anosh sahib was a Parsi. That’s why both the men had kept quiet, too.
An awkward silence descended upon the room. My relative suddenly turned towards me and asked, “Nadeem, what do you think? Would it be possible?”
Taken aback, I just shrugged my shoulders: “I’m not very good at these things, but since these two gentlemen are residents of the area and …”
Zahoor sahib cut me off: “We can ask Imam sahib!”
Now, apparently, this “Imam sahib” was not the Imam of the mosque but an aged person who was treated as a religious scholar by the residents. He and his wife delivered religious lectures to the men and women of the area every three months or so.
“Friends, why are you complicating matters for Anosh sahib and Henry sahib? Why create an issue? We can meet somewhere else, unless we are looking to get some extra blessings from the Almighty by having our committee meetings at a mosque,” Munawwar said.
This did not go down well with Zahoor. “Munawwar, you hardly come to the mosque. Maybe our meetings will be able to make you come and pray there more often…”
There was laughter all round. But none from Anosh or Henry.
“If I may,” I politely interrupted, “why not ask Henry sahib and Anosh sahib?”
Munawar agreed: “Absolutely! They contribute to the funds of the committee as much as any one of us. And they have a vote too.”
Unfortunately, this suggestion seemed to have made Henry sahib and Anosh sahib even more uncomfortable.
“No, no, you do what you think is right …” Anosh sahib said, evasively.
Then Henry sahib spoke: “You can have the meetings there (at the mosque) and can update us…”
“Thank you,” said Zahoor, “so we all agree on this then?” Some quietly nodded their heads, and some softly said “yes.”
But in came Munawwar again: “In that case, I suggest, the monthly maintenance bills of Anosh sahib and Henry sahib be slightly less than ours.”
“And why so?” asked one Danish sahib. “Because, if we use the mosque for our meetings, the maulvi (priest) will rightly ask us to contribute to the mosque’s electricity bill. That would be added to our individual maintenance fee. Why should these two men pay additional charges if they are not even there?” said Munawwar.
“The mosque will charge us?” asked Danish, surprised. “But we already pay for its upkeep.”
“We can ask Imam sahib,” said Munawwar, sarcastically. I tried my best not to smile but no one else in the room treated Munawwar’s comment as a sarcastic jab. Instead, they now began to discuss the topic of a mosque charging a fee from its funders. They shared relevant quotes from the holy book and quotes from Imam sahib’s speeches, until Danish announced, “We already pay for the mosque! For its electricity, water, gas…”
“It has a gas connection too?” someone asked.
“Maulvi sahib and his family have to eat too, brother. So they cook in the rooms where they live, connected to the mosque,” Zahoor sahib replied.
So it was agreed. They would meet at the mosque (and Anosh and Henry would have to pay as much maintenance fee as everyone else).
Years later, in 2017, I was driving through another posh locality of Karachi — Bath Island — when I saw Munawwar walking briskly on a street. I stopped my car to say hello. “Munawwar sahib, do you recognise me?”
“Yes, yes. I do. How are you?” he replied.
“What are you doing here in Bath Island?” I asked.
“I now live here,” he said.
“Where are you walking to so hastily? Let me give you a lift.” I offered.
“No, no, it’s quite alright,” he said. “I’m just going to that mosque over there.”
“Munawwar I grew up in this area. Friday prayers ended an hour ago in that mosque”, I said to him.
He laughed: “No, little brother. I am going there to attend a meeting of our residents’ committee.”
“Really?” I smiled widely, thinking he was joking. “Even in this area?”
“Boss, this area or that, what does it matter? People are the same everywhere,” he smiled back.
“How did the mosque meetings at DHA go?” I asked.
“Didn’t Yawar tell you?” he asked.
This is what happened: Munawwar sold his house in DHA. Since he had continued to insist on including Anosh and Henry in the meetings, some members of the committee started to suspect he was from a heretical sect, although he wasn’t. Munawwar was just a right-thinking liberal hearted man. Even though these members were admonished by others for saying such spiteful things, Munawwar left the area with his family.
“What about here? Are there no Anosh or Henry sahibs here”, I asked. “I’m sure there are,” he replied. “But I have learned to ignore them. I’m sure you can understand.”
Saying this, he bid me farewell, and walked away.
(Writer: Nadeem Paracha; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
The Taliban are re-evaluating ties with their Pak allies and are fearing the extremism that ISI activity brings. India must provide them with an alternate regional option, says Ranvijay Singh
With India currently besieged by Covid-19 and the host of socio-economic problems that come along with it, few can afford to worry about geo-political machinations taking place abroad. Yet, as the peace process between the United States (US) and the Taliban in Afghanistan reaches a precarious position — with the Taliban having ramped up their attacks against the Afghan Government despite the recent spread of the Coronavirus in the country — it is imperative India takes stock of the situation.
While it might be many months before the US finally exits Afghanistan, especially with the virus complicating prisoner exchange and the ongoing negotiations, the South Asian security matrix is going to undergo a paradigm shift once all American military operations come to their inevitable end. India must aim to use this transition to boost its regional security interests.
The conflict in Afghanistan can at one level be understood as being between the majority Pashtuns who are mostly concentrated in Southern and Central Afghanistan (and across the Durand Line, the 2,430-km border between Afghanistan and Pakistan), who the Taliban claim to represent, fighting against the empowerment of ethnic minorities from northern Afghanistan such as the Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks by successive democratically- elected governments.
While both the past and present presidents of Afghanistan — Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani — are Pashtun, they are seen as leaders propped up by the West. They are also seen as being overly-sympathetic to ethnic minorities. Moreover, many State institutions are dominated by ethnic minorities and see a lack of representation by the Pashtuns.
However, the conflict in Afghanistan has also been considered as a continuation of the proxy war between India and Pakistan. It is no secret that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has deep ties with the Taliban and has continued to back extremist groups in Afghanistan, even while calling itself an “ally” of the US in its war on terror.
A recent example of the Pakistani military establishment’s support to the Taliban and allied terror groups was the attack on a gurdwara in Kabul on March 25. Prima facie it was thought to be an attack carried out by the Islamic State (IS). However, further investigations carried out by Afghan authorities found direct links between the attackers, the Taliban-linked Haqqani Network and the ISI. A report produced by the European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS) further substantiated these links.
India, on its part, has been a staunch supporter of the democratic Afghan State. This link has existed since the pre-9/11 terror attacks, when New Delhi supplied military equipment and humanitarian support to the Northern Alliance in its effort to topple the brutal Taliban regime.
The Northern Alliance later went on to form the Afghan Government and many of its leaders, such as General Dostum, are now key members of the present regime. William Dalrymple’s Brookings Essay A Deadly Triangle, published in 2013, presents and explains this tacit conflict cogently.
With the US now having committed to leaving, the weakest entity in this entire sum seems to be the Afghan Government. With the decrease in Western military support to it, the Taliban have made steady gains and now control over a third of the country. The Afghan National Army has been unable to establish itself as an effective fighting force.
Moreover, the recent election results have been heavily disputed and both leading candidates, incumbent Ashraf Ghani and his opponent Abdullah Abdullah, have sworn themselves in as President in March. A divided civilian leadership, a weak military establishment and with US support nearing its expiry date, the Afghan Government now finds itself in a bleak spot.
This situation has been further exacerbated by the US negotiating for a peace deal directly with the Taliban without the Afghan Government. Regardless of how these negotiations ultimately pan out, any form of eventual peace will need the integration of the Taliban into the governing State — a realisation that made the US finally reach the negotiation table. As it stands presently, the Taliban have been able to keep their sphere of influence strong enough to make the US realise that trying to govern Afghanistan as a whole, in a state of peace and stability, would be impossible without their cooperation. The US war aim of completely eradicating the Taliban and making the majority ethnic group, the Pashtuns, co-opt into a democratic system dominated by minority ethnic groups was near impossible. Ghani and Abdullah both need to realise this, if they have not already done so.
So where does India find itself at this threshold of a new phase in Afghanistan? The resurgence of the Taliban has obviously worried New Delhi. A key interest of India, if not its main, is to ensure that the Afghan State does not eventually consist of elements that would support extremist groups functioning in Kashmir. In the past, the Taliban have been known to have warm relations with the Lakshar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). Extremist networks based in Kashmir, with the backing of the IS, have been known previously to have auxiliary bases functioning freely across Afghanistan and Pakistan.
However, the Taliban now seem to be willing to leave behind extremist inclinations if allowed to integrate into the Afghan State. They have repeatedly claimed that they have now cut former ties and will not allow terror groups to function in Afghanistan if allowed to form a Government. Recently, during an online conference hosted by the Delhi-based think-tank Global Counter-terrorism Council, the Taliban spokesperson Mohammad Shaheen stated, “We will never want any foreign organisation using Afghan soil to target another country. We will bring a law to stop any such activity.” More pertinently, Shaheen also claimed that the Taliban would be more than willing to engage with neighbouring countries “on the basis of mutual respect and mutual interests.”
While the solidity of these sentiments will only be seen in times to come, India must now aim to establish some sort of ties with the Taliban. Till now, it has been openly hostile to the negotiations undertaken by the US and has repeatedly tried to lobby for their termination. Continuing such aggressive posturing against the Taliban is folly if India wants to have substantial influence in a post-America Afghanistan. At a time when the Taliban themselves are re-evaluating their relations with their Pakistani allies and are fearing the spectre of extremism and lawlessness that ISI activity brings, India must aim to provide them with an alternate regional option.
Some analysts, such as veteran journalist and author Ahmed Rashid, have even gone on to claim that the Taliban would prefer closer relations with India now. In contrast to Pakistan, which has backed terror groups that have only brought destruction and devastation upon the country, India has immense soft power in Afghanistan. Holding back from military intervention, while continuing to support Afghanistan economically with Indian aid totalling more than $3 billion now, has been an effective geo-political move.
Further strengthening this commitment, the Indian Government in mid-April sent medical and food supplies to aid the Afghan Government in tackling Covid-19. If relations with the Taliban are not established in this new chapter of Afghanistan, which will most likely see them play a pivotal role, India will risk squandering its influence. Simultaneously though, India must also continue its engagement with the democratic regime and the northern ethnic minorities. It is equally important to remember that a situation resembling the Afghan civil war of the late 90s, between the Taliban and the erstwhile Northern Alliance, is still very much a possibility.
In a situation of an all-out military campaign, where the Taliban might have an inclination to fall back on Pakistan for assistance, India must be ready to engage with equivalent assistance in the form of economic and humanitarian aid to the entities that will safeguard its interests. Some hawkish voices have even called for Indian boots on the ground in an effort to fill the void that will be left by the US troops.
Yet, if history has taught us anything, after the British, Soviet and now US misadventure to stabilise Afghanistan, it would be a terrible mistake to do so. It is important to remember that much of the goodwill harboured by the Afghans towards India has been due to our ability to help them without intervening militarily, an action which will be perceived as hostile by many. No nation appreciates the idea of a foreign army on its soil — especially not Afghanistan.
In a situation which is constantly developing and has the possibility of multifarious outcomes, India must constantly try to pre-empt the status quo and build ties that will help assert its geo-political interests. A stable and peaceful regime in Afghanistan, which censures terror activity, is vital to India’s security interests. Deeming Afghanistan to be irrelevant, as some have, will only result in the weakening of India’s position in South Asia.
(Writer: Ranvijay Singh; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
With the Afghan peace deal on hold due to its infirmities and COVID-19, India has its role cut out: To open a back channel with the Taliban and carve out a place in intra-Afghan dialogue
For the Americans especially, the most spectacular political event in the first quarter of 2020 was the signing of the Afghanistan peace deal between the US and the Taliban at Doha and simultaneously, a US-Afghanistan agreement at Kabul. The first agreement fructified after many nations, including Russia and China, failed to broker one. However imperfect, indeed flawed, for US President Donald Trump, the deal is meant to be a game-changer for his re-election later this year. He will bring back 4,000 US soldiers by August and the remaining 12,000 by July 2021.
The International Crisis Group, Brussels, described the agreement as “ambiguous and at places contradictory, leading to confusion.” The anomalies have already been discussed threadbare. The agreements have opened two new mechanisms: Direct military channel between the US military commander at Kabul with the Taliban at Doha; and a new Afghanistan-Pakistan dialogue facilitated by America, aimed at border security and ending terrorist safe-havens.
Trump was overwhelmed by the agreements but acknowledged in response to a question that the Taliban could seize power after the US and Nato forces leave Afghanistan. “Yes, that is possible…US’ commitment to Afghanistan comes with an expiry date,” he said. The swearing-in of the two Afghan Presidents in the same building created its own confusion dynamics but this time around, US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, instead of mediating between them, threatened to cut $1 billion from security funding, not just for this year but also next year. The prisoner swap — of 5,000 Taliban for 1,000 Afghan soldiers — is also stuck on the modalities of release and the Taliban not reducing violence, leading to a comprehensive ceasefire. For the first time, the US mission in Afghanistan has refused to disclose the details of ground operations and casualties. But the office of Afghanistan’s National Security Advisor said that the Taliban has carried out 2,804 attacks since the peace agreement was signed on February 29.
The mother of all problems on both sides, the Taliban and its adversaries, is the COVID-19 pandemic, which has invaded the presidential palace, too. The first Corona case in Afghanistan was detected at Herat on February 24. On May 4, 3,894 positive cases were reported with 400 recoveries and 90 deaths. The highest incidence of cases is in Herat due to its proximity to Iran and several thousand Afghan refugees are returning home. A Coronavirus task force, led by Vice President Amrullah Saleh, former head of National Directorate of Security, along with a technical team from the National Security Council attached to it has been established. It is feared that if the pandemic is not contained, it could spread to central Asia.
India has been relatively active in Afghanistan following the signing of the peace agreements. Its consistency in refusing to open the channels with the Taliban is remarkably amazing. Foreign Minister S Jaishankar likened the US-Taliban deal with a long-awaited film, Pakeezah, and its 17 trailers, employing his emblematic phraseology: “We will watch this space for outcomes.”
Interestingly, India had stopped short of welcoming the agreements. Instead, the Ministry of External Affairs had noted that the “entire political spectrum in Afghanistan welcomed the opportunity for peace and stability.” Jaishankar has maintained India’s position that the gains of the last 18 years must be preserved. New Delhi was quick to acknowledge Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani’s victory in the presidential elections, overlooking loyal partner Abdullah Abdullah, whose family our country has hosted for several years. A deal between Ghani and Abdullah is in the making where the latter has proposed his name as Executive Prime Minister and leader of the talks team with the Taliban.
For the second time in three months, Taliban spokesperson Suhail Shaheen said that his organisation would want good relations in the neighbourhood on the basis of mutual interest and respect. “We will never want any foreign organisation to use the Afghan soil to target another country.” On February 29, Taliban supremo Hibatullah Akhundzada said that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan believes in sound relations with the world and the region.
The recent attack on a Gurudwara in Kabul that killed 25 Sikhs whereby it is not clear if the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant — Khorasan Province (ISIS-K) or the Haqqani Network was in the works, has sent a chilling message for the future of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) operations in Afghanistan targetting Indian assets. The arrest of ISIS-K leader, Abdullah Orakzai, a Pakistani national, by the National Directorate of Security (NDS) recently will open up new trails. The Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) has claimed that ISIS-K has been virtually eliminated, including its top leaders, an achievement hailed by Ghani as the defeat of the ISIS-K. The Taliban, assisted by US firepower, apparently played a lead role in this victory. Latest threat assessments prompted India to withdraw two of its four consulates in Afghanistan at Herat and Jalalabad with two others in Kandahar and Mazar-e-Sharif remaining in place. Both these consulates have been targetted in the past too — Jalalabad has been attacked four times since 2007, even forcing its relocation in 2016. Herat was attacked in 2014 and Mazar-e-Sharif in 2013. The Jaish-e-Mohmmad and the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, in concert with the Haqqanis, were involved in these attacks.
The optimistic inference drawn from the US interlocutor Zalmay Khalilzad’s recent conversation with Jaishankar, enquiring on the COVID-19 pandemic and briefing him on the progress in the agreement with the Taliban, that India is now part of the peace process is highly misplaced. Expectations were raised by former President Hamid Karzai when he said at the Raisina Dialogue in January and more recently after the Khalilzad-Jaishankar conversation that India should be part of the peace process. Similarly, Mohammed Masoom Stanekzai, head of the Ghani-appointed 21-member talks team with the Taliban, said at a conference that India should be part of the regional conference on Afghanistan. Pakistan will never allow India to come inside the tent. Jaishankar knows it and will be watching that space keenly.
After all, the peace deal is a troop extrication agreement, not part of a peace process as the two agreements signed at Doha and Kabul are apparently not interlinked. Even so, last week, Khalilzad had urged the Taliban to observe peace and suspend offensive military operations during Ramadan as it was an opportunity for humanitarian ceasefire, at least till the Coronavirus crisis was over.
The Afghans are unhappy that the Taliban has pledged not to attack the US and other foreign forces but is continuing to kill fellow Afghans. With the implementation of the peace deal on hold due to its infirmities and COVID-19, India has its role cut out: To open back channel with the Taliban; hasten bridging the gap between Ghani and Abdullah, vital for the cohesion of national response to Taliban; re-deploy consulates at Herat and Jalalabad as soon as feasible; and carve out a place in intra-Afghan dialogue.
(Writer: Ashok K Mehta; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Article 75 of WHO’s Constitution gives it the right to refer matters to the ICJ for advisory purposes. China’s failure to disclose information and disseminate data about the virus during its preliminary stages, coupled with its wilful negligence in regulating wildlife trade, invariably triggers a breach of the treaty
The COVID-19 pandemic has engulfed over 100 countries around the world and for the lack of a cure, governments have been compelled to largely depend on social vaccination measures, including lockdown, isolation and social distancing. This flu-like virus, with origins in China’s Wuhan city, has caused tremendous distress in terms of health, economic and social well-being of the international community.
Accountability: World economies are in shambles but when the dust settles, fingers will be pointed and responsibility strictly apportioned. Already China is being pushed against the wall by the global community and difficult questions are being asked of it regarding the origins of the virus and the delay in warning the world about it turning into a pandemic.
Predictably, the issue of China’s legal liability for the COVID-19 outbreak will be raised. The US has filed a $20 trillion lawsuit — an amount larger than China’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — against Chinese authorities to seek reparation for economic harm. Similar lawsuits have been filed in Germany and India against China claiming compensation for damages. However, domestic laws are unsuited for this task because the principle of sovereign immunity prevents local courts from ruling on the acts of foreign governments. For the lack of enforceability, we must redirect our attention to supranational legal frameworks for remedies and solutions to this precarious inquiry.
International Health Regulations, 2005: After the spread of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003, the World Health Organisation (WHO) adopted an International Health Regulation (IHR) by making member countries accountable to counter such global pandemics. Article 6 mandates each member country to “notify the WHO, by the most efficient means of communication available, by way of the National IHR Focal Point, and within 24 hours of assessment of public health information.” Further, Article 7 goes on to state that if a country “has evidence of an unexpected or unusual public health event within its territory, irrespective of origin or source, which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern, it shall provide to the WHO all relevant public health information.”
These regulations are further fortified by Articles 11 and 12 of the IHR which require the WHO to share such data, once verified, with other countries so that they can enact precautionary measures.
It is alleged that China not only failed on both counts but also censored, misled and suppressed information, from the media and the WHO, about the Coronavirus and its effects. Moreover, China portrayed COVID-19 as a new form of pneumonia that could not be transferred from one human to another, which was later admitted by Chinese authorities as otherwise. Collectively, these actions made it difficult for countries around the world to adequately prepare for this deadly virus, leading to colossal damages to the health and finances of nations. The destruction of virus strains in Wuhan University also raised suspicions regarding the COVID-19 being a man-made virus to be used as a biological weapon, currently put under experimentation in Wuhan Labs. Keeping these accusations aside, it is important to note that it is not the first time China is the place of origin of an epidemic or deadly disease. From the Asian flu and Hong Kong flu to the Swine flu, all had China as their epicentre. In the case of SARS, China’s exotic wet market was on the radar but Beijing failed to impose restrictions on its billion dollar industry, overlooking the threat of a repeated catastrophe. China flouted the rules, time and again and for this, it must be held to account.
Jurisdictional issue: The final and probably the most vital piece in this puzzle is how might China be brought before an international court for its unlawful actions?
The major lacuna is the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Cases are referred to the ICJ once consensus between disputing parties has been established and taking into account past records, China has been resistant to authority and may continue on the path of resistance. An unconventional way of circumventing the jurisdictional issue would be to invoke the provision that empowers an organisation to refer disputes to the ICJ. Article 75 of WHO’s Constitution gives the organisation the right to refer matters to the ICJ for advisory purposes.
China’s failure to disclose information and disseminate data about the Coronavirus during its preliminary stages, coupled with its wilful negligence in regulating wildlife trade, invariably triggers a breach of the treaty. Though experimental and untested, this route offers a glimmer of hope for invoking the jurisdiction of the ICJ to assess Chinese liability and hold that nation accountable for losses caused to the international community at large.
While the ICJ’s opinion is not directly enforceable, they do provide an authoritative assessment of legal liability around which governments can synchronise their political response by way of seizure of Chinese assets or imposing trade sanctions. China, being Asia’s largest economy, holds an influential place in world politics today. This, however, shall not be construed as a means to assume absolute power and continue flouting rules of the IHR issued by the WHO.
Measures available to the affected countries are by no means simple. Each requires considerable international collaboration, cooperation and resolve to implement, particularly considering China’s towering economic influence. It is evident that China is the originator of the pandemic but it will be an onerous task to classify its action and response as advertent, willful or a case of gross negligence in its greed to push a lucrative, yet hazardous billion dollar industry.
(Writer: Sonam Chandwani; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month