Apart from raising doubts about the benefits of a global village another major impact of the Coronavirus is the fact that it is challenging and redefining the world order as we know it
The spread of the deadly Coronavirus through human-to-human transmission and the growing number of fatalities is giving birth to all kinds of conspiracy theories, blame games and racism. However, the growing preference for isolation, erection of walls, closing of boundries, restrictions on travel and tourism is also exhibiting that the world is no longer a global village and we are now divided into numerous Google villages.
The ills of globalisation and relative interdependence are visible in the acute dearth of protective gear for fighting the contagion, even in the mightiest of all countries, the US. Since China is the largest producer of protective gear like masks, ventilators, respirators, protective suits and testing kits, America’s helplessness and dependence on China, which controls 95 per cent of the US market for the supply of these kits is easily understandable. This is a warning sign for not just the global super power but also for other nations that they need to reduce such dependence and start production of everything, which used to be outsourced for manufacturing to China or other countries. The Coronavirus is shaping up to be an enormous stress test for globalisation. As critical supply chains break down, nations hoard medical supplies and limit travel, the crisis is forcing a major reevaluation of the interconnected global economy. Not only has globalisation allowed for the rapid spread of contagious disease but it has fostered deep interdependence between firms and nations that makes them more vulnerable to unexpected shocks. Now, firms and nations alike are discovering just how vulnerable they are.
Another major impact of the Coronavirus is the fact that it is challenging and redefining the world order as we know it. The inability of the US to quickly control the spread of this virus and save the lives of its citizens has exposed the weakness and lack of vision of the US leadership in taking stock of the situation and providing the much-needed guidance to the administration. As a result, the number of casualties today in the country has crossed the number of deaths in China, where the whole nightmare began.
The status of the US as a global leader has been built not just on wealth and power but also, and just as important, on the legitimacy that flows from its domestic governance, provision of global public goods and the ability and willingness to muster and coordinate a global response to crises. The Coronavirus pandemic is testing all three elements of US leadership and so far Washington is failing the test.
On the other hand, as this deadly virus travelled from China’s Whuan province to virtually every part of the globe, therefore, primarily China is being considered the villain by the world. This is also in major part due to the fact that it concealed the information about the contagion for a long time. Had it informed the global village in time, the precautions which are being taken now could have been taken earlier and the large- scale spread of the virus could have been averted.
At present, the concerns about the dominance of the world order through economics, expansion of trade, commerce and route connectivity have taken a back seat and the control of the pandemic has taken a front seat. Though by locking down Wuhan province through draconian measures, China succeeded in containing the spread of the outbreak to other parts of the country, hiding the news of the contagion it was unable to prevent its spread to the rest of the world. Apart from the 42,352 people across the globe who have died because of the Coronavirus, the other big casualty of the pandemic is the global village-based world order, as now every country has sealed its borders and even flights have been grounded for now. Currently, the only thing that is keeping the world united and linked is the internet as the Google village is available for accessing and exchanging information and ideas.
After being castigated and ostracized by the world community for hiding and spreading the virus globally, the Chinese President sought India’s support to confront its isolation and face the world bravely. Even in the time of a crisis China has not forgotten its world-domination ambitions and in order to show its greatness and maintainin its status as a major power on the world stage, as a goodwill gesture China is willing to share its experiences and strategy with India.
As the US fumbles around, China is moving quickly and adeptly to take advantage of the opening created by Trump’s mistakes, filling the vacuum to position itself as the global leader in the response to a major crisis. It is working to tout its own system, provide material assistance to other countries, and even organise other Governments. But the world community, including the US, is not going to forget what China has done and how Beijing is using this opportunity to increase its military and economic might by offering to supply the medical necessities to Europe and the US.
Beijing’s move to block the recently-called United Nations Security Council meet on the Coronavirus pandemic also indicates that China is aspiring hard to maintain its image of a generous leader of the world ready to help with loans and equipment. Chinese attempts clearly hint that this pandemic will surely change the global scenario but the power game will remain unhampered because China, even in the wake of the crisis, is not leaving any stone unturned to make its presence felt in the Indo-Pacific.
Although it was felt that the COVID-19 outbreak would halt China’s overseas investments, interestingly the signals coming from China right now indicate that it is not likely to stop overseas investment in its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) project and will also keep on exploring the possibility of grabbing new markets for its goods, commodities and investments. Because, through this it can fill the power gap and make its presence and power felt in the Indo-Pacific region, particularly in the BRI countries.
According to reports, recently Chinese military aircraft carried out anti-submarine drills in the contested South China Sea (SCS), to respond to patrols by US warships, which suggests that Coronavirus or no Coronavirus, China is not going to mend its ways and tone down its assertiveness and leave any opportunity to exhibit its power politics. The claims of controlling the COVID-19 in Whuan have made it more aggressive than ever. Even though the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA’s) activities on the Tibetan plateau have reduced due to the outbreak, PLA intrusions were recently reported from Naku-la, south of the watershed in Northern Sikkim, a border said to be “settled” by China.
In view of China’s obvious moves for domination, most of the countries including the World Health Organisation are looking at the other major power in the region, India’s response and efforts to confront this challenge with interest and anxiety.
If this crisis is not handled carefully by India the death toll and the number of sick people would be unimaginable and would take the country back by decades, something which would not be in favour of New Delhi and its allies as they look to India to stop China’s march.
In this context it would be appropriate to highlight that while in the domestic sector India is taking all necessary steps to contain the outbreak, on the other hand regionally and internationally also India is at the forefront of the fight against Coronavirus.
The Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi’s call for cooperation to fight the pandemic to the SAARC countries, places the nation at the front and centre of the fight against the pandemic in the region and gives it a place at the global power high table. With the creation of the $10 million SAARC Emergency Fund to fight Covid-19, India has also supplied testing equipment and sanitisers to Maldives, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Nepal and Bangladesh. In a recent meeting the G-20 group also pledged to introduce $5 trillion into the global economy to blunt the affect of the virus. Prime Minister Modi has also advocated the need for developing a new crisis management protocol to deal with global health issues, which indicates patient and good leadership and signals India’s effective presence in the global power scenario. The seriousness and gravity shown by the Indian leadership and appeals to people for restraint and determination are a great example of ethical leadership in the time of a crisis. The well-timed lockdown and appeals by the leadership for social isolation are allowing all of us to forget the concept of global village and just turn into Google village with limited exposure to people but unlimited contacts for our well-being.
(Writer: Annpurna Nautiyal; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
If COVID-19 does stall/delay Chinese ‘aid’ to Pakistan, which is heavily dependent on it, the latter could be saddled with incomplete projects and unsustainable interest payments
As the inevitability and magnitude of the impact COVID-19 would have on global economies sinks in, with estimates worsening day by day, there is no denying the fact that those economies substantially dependent on China will be poised precariously. The traditional Chinese Sinosphere stratagem had been to bankroll, financially and diplomatically, desperate regimes with the help of readily available, uncomplicated and “non-judgmental” Chinese largesse. The dragon leveraged its treasury to systematically ensnare alienated regimes in Pyongyang, Islamabad and Tehran among others to even include financially gasping countries in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, right across to Polynesian Islands, all under its tutelage.
The Chinese economic juggernaut funded its hegemonic instincts and Beijing rapidly connected the dots with “win-win” infrastructural projects like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), supporting inter-linkages like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). For this purpose, it even used the ports around the String of Pearls, which vassalised nations and made them directly susceptible to Chinese whims as also fate.
Pakistan is among the most hinged nations within the Sinosphere, which is poised to feel the direct squeeze of COVID-19. China will inevitably recalibrate its priorities and focus on protecting itself from immediate damage before being concerned about others. Extreme paranoia about managing the expectations of its 1.4 billion population, to avoid a USSR-like implosion, haunts the regime. Such are the insecurities faced by the single-party Government over there. China deploys a combination of fear, opportunities, populism and nationalism to willfully or unwilfully get its populace to accept one-party rule. The bargaining assurance is continuous societal progression of the Chinese masses and their lifestyle.
Undeniable progress on various socio-economic parameters has allowed that bargain between the regime and the Chinese people to maintain the status quo. Now, this economic miracle runs the real risk of a very hard landing as the entire Chinese ecosystem goes into a COVID-19 “containment mode,” which will necessitate a pullback from internationalist priorities. Top Chinese priority would now be on a domestic stimulus package that entails a slew of Government-led spending, investments, subsidies and all sorts of deliberate financial pumping that will automatically shrink budgets for external endeavours, at least temporarily.
Meanwhile, the Pakistani economy is on a ventilator mode. It has partaken a record 22nd bailout package from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) besides the many “aid packages” from China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). While the conditionalities of the IMF’s $6 billion Extended Fund Facility (EFF) will be subject to unpopular economic reforms and would be doled out only in tranches, the Chinese have been the single most generous source, donating $4.6 billion in the form of deposits and commercial loans.
Ties with the US are circumspect. Though the Taliban peace deal may force optics of a thaw but hopes for any meaningful financial aid from Washington, DC, are highly unlikely. Not only has Pakistan maxed out its deals with Saudi Arabia and the UAE but it has unendeared itself to both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi recently by cozying up to a rival “bloc” within the Ummah ie, the Turkey-Malaysia-Qatar-Iran combine. This leaves limited scope for any more substantial inflow from the Arab Sheikhdoms. Pakistan has extremely limited manoeuvring space. The only viable option is/was China.
Our neighbour has survived embarrassing defaults in the balance of payment timelines by borrowing more. The singular hope that is described by the establishment over there as the “game-changer” is the China-funded CPEC. This $62 billion infrastructural hope is mired in dangerous opacity with credible murmurs of disproportionate pro-China terms, sovereignty compromises and an eventuality of China’s fabled “debt trap.” All of this leads it to abject surrender to Beijing. Law-makers had earlier likened the CPEC to a modern-day East India company, yet with no alternatives for an economic revival in sight, the CPEC is the sole sovereign punt.
Such are the stakes involved that the Pakistani military has raised and deployed a dedicated division to protect the CPEC imperatives. It is now raising a second dedicated division level force. The gargantuan investment in CPEC is “aided” by China. The CPEC project has just completed phase-I but the forthcoming phase-II is predominantly about industrial cooperation, agriculture and trade — essentially the component that is more relevant to the Pakistanis than the Chinese.
The timing of COVID-19 could not be worse from Islamabad’s perspective as phase-II and its benefits are key to its economy’s survival. The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had openly warned the IMF a couple of years back against bailing out Pakistan. He feared that such an aid would be used by it to repay Chinese lenders. Today, the bill for full Chinese “aid,” if it were still to be given, could compound to a crushing estimate of nearly $100 billion over the next three decades. If COVID-19 does stall the Chinese “aid”, then Pakistan could be saddled with incomplete projects and unsustainable interest payments for the “aid” already taken.
Beyond bailouts and commerce, “all-weather friendship” has seen China provide invaluable diplomatic and military provisioning. While this could continue, the material wares may not necessarily come on terms as “soft” as earlier, given the financial angularity. Islamabad is also over-indexed in trade with a whopping 18 per cent of its total trade with China. This also accounts for over 31 per cent of the total imports by Pakistan. This disproportionate tilt exacerbates the Pakistani situation with looming disruptions from China.
While the exact long-term impact of COVID-19 is still unknown and China is known to have sufficient economic buffers, wherewithal and a strategic commitment to withstand setbacks with speedy recalibrations, the health of Pakistan to withstand even a temporary “switch-off” is suspect. Pakistan is too dependent on China to manage without its “aid”, especially given its recent relationships with other potential donors.
Unsurprisingly, Pakistan has pitched countries like Turkey to sell the CPEC dream and incredulously so, even the US. American diplomat Alice Wells nipped the idea in the bud by sounding out the alarm bells on CPEC per se, even without accounting for the new curve-ball of COVID-19. This could be the proverbial last straw. As of now, all global economies are mired in untellable uncertainties of post-Corona revival, some completely China-hinged like Pakistan, worse so.
(Writer: Bhopinder Singh; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
With the certainty that the Taliban will return to the corridors of power in some form or the other, it is a no-brainer to conclude that New Delhi needs dexterity than ever before
In 2001, General Abdul Rashid Dostum, then a fierce warlord, the first Vice President of Afghanistan and a key political figure for the northern Afghan provinces now, apparently said the following to the Captain of the US Army Special Forces ODA 595 fighting the Afghanistan war. The latter was on a classified mission in the wake of the September 11 attacks that led to the fight for Mazar-i-Sharif. “There are no right choices here. This is Afghanistan. Graveyard of many empires. Today you are our friend, tomorrow you are our enemy…You will be cowards if you leave. And you will be our enemies if you stay.”
With close to 100 attacks in Afghanistan post the signing of the US-Taliban deal, the decree by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to release 1,500 Taliban fighters and competing power axes in the country with Opposition leader Abdullah Abdullah and Ghani holding parallel inaugurals of the new Government in Kabul, Afghanistan threatens to come full circle from its Taliban-ruled days. Indeed, 18 years later, the US is caught between the coward-enemy binary, with the Taliban spokesman Za-bihullah Mujahid announcing, “As per the US-Taliban agreement, our mujahideen will not attack foreign forces but our operations will continue against the Kabul administration forces.” Moreover, as the Trump administration has deliberately concealed two written annexes of the deal from the public, much remains in the realm of speculation regarding the details of the pact. This would lead one to make assessments, whether or not the Taliban is living up to the end of the bargain, which is almost impossible.
The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s latest dash to Kabul to reconcile warring parties in Afghanistan, to form a unity Government and begin intra-Afghanistan talks, did not see any progress. However, the Trump administration’s threat of slashing $1 billion in assistance to Afghanistan has yielded some result with the Ghani Government and the Taliban agreeing to prisoner-swap, starting March 31. There has been little progress on the issue of two parallel Governments in Kabul. As the US is dealing with one of the worst pandemics in its history right now, its resolve to leave Afghanistan in the next 14 months is going to further strengthen. To this end, there are a few questions that need clear answers from India’s point of view. What does the emerging situation mean for peace in Afghanistan and the larger regional stability in the region? How will the resultant geopolitical and geostrategic space in Afghanistan be used by external powers? What should be India’s role in a new Afghanistan, where the Taliban has gained renewed legitimacy?
Depicting a change from its earlier stance, New Delhi welcomed the pact between the US and the Taliban. During his first foreign trip, Indian Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla reached Kabul for a two-day visit and met top Afghan political leaders a day before the US-Taliban peace agreement was signed in Qatar on February 29. The Indian Ambassador to Qatar, P Kumaran, was also an invitee of the Qatari Government to the signing ceremony.
In November 2018, two Indian representatives participated, non-officially, in the Moscow chapter of the Afghan peace talks, which included a high-level representation from the Taliban. Besides the fact that it doesn’t want to be in a camp opposite to the US, an increasingly close partner of India in global endeavours, there is an apprehension in New Delhi about being left out of the processes that are shaping Afghanistan’s politics if the latter continues strategic distancing from the Taliban.
Pakistan’s role as one of the facilitators in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table has further shrunk New Delhi’s diplomatic heft, apropos Afghanistan at the global high table. As such, there are signs of greater skin in the game in Afghanistan for India to pre-emptively deal with an emerging politico-strategic dynamic over there.
Afghanistan has come full circle — first the ouster of the Taliban Government, then a democratic Afghan Government with security force, to the return of the Taliban as a legitimate political player. Despite the Americans calling it an agreement “between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which is not recognised by the US,” there is no denying the fact that the peace deal has brought a sense of legitimacy to the Taliban. This compels a shift in New Delhi’s Afghan strategy.
There are at least three factors that point to India’s shifting policies in Afghanistan, albeit without an endgame. First, India’s improved relations with the US and its increasing convergences with Washington have left little room for it to be on a side that’s vehemently opposed to the latter. More so when China is becoming a key player in Afghanistan. US President Donald Trump, during his recent visit to India, is said to have solicited support from New Delhi for the Taliban deal. Second, America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan tacitly thrusts a greater regional responsibility on India. This is not just in correspondence to the emerging regional expectations on the part of Afghanistan but also a palpable realisation in its scheme of regional leadership. Finally, having a greater skin in the game for India in Afghanistan, albeit with deliberate moderations in its role over there, seems to be the best option for New Delhi as the choice is between being there and being left out.
India’s role in Afghanistan since 2001 has largely been focussed on the civilian reconstruction of the war-torn country, with involvement in the security sector limited to training Afghan officers in Indian military institutions, and a rather restrained willingness to supply military platforms and equipment. Owing to recent developments, questions over the nature of India’s role in Afghanistan are being acutely debated in the Indian strategic community.
The Ghani-led Afghan Government in Kabul has barely emerged from a divided election result and is faced with an uphill task in terms of thrashing out the future of the country with the Taliban, which has steadfastly refused to recognise its legitimacy, calling it a puppet of the US Government. Much is also contingent on the release of the remaining 3,500 Taliban fighters as promised by the Ghani Government. Therefore, while New Delhi, Washington and Kabul may still call for an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led peace process, it will be naïve not to consider the return of a full-fledged violence by the Taliban.
For India, the most pertinent question is: What kind of leverage has Pakistan gained in the entire gamble, in exchange for its role in the US-Taliban talks, given its influence over the Taliban leadership and intentions to maintain strategic depth in that country? Pakistan’s regaining of the “strategic depth” runs counter to all efforts to establish an influential Indian presence in Afghanistan.
The recent heinous attack at a gurudwara in Kabul that killed 28 Sikhs portrays the complexity of the challenge for India in Afghanistan as the only legitimate backer of the elected Afghan Government even as the US purposefully recedes. If India continues to guard its stakes, irrespective of the nature of the next Government over there, it should brace for a long resistance and fight with the Pakistani deep state. As was evident in the gurudwara attack, Pakistan will intensify the use of the Haqqani network and other terrorist factions that it has a leverage on, as a front to attack India.
The India-Afghanistan strategic partnership, among other things, is based on a resolute Afghan Government in Kabul. At this juncture, with the certainty that the Taliban will return to the corridors of power in some form or the other, it is a no-brainer to conclude that New Delhi needs dexterity than ever before. Add to this, the complex picture of China, which has shown its willingness to invest in Afghanistan. The US pullout, therefore, can be an opportunity for India to fill the strategic gap. But to do this effectively, it would either require an enhanced security apparatus in Kabul, whether by partnering with another country or by itself. Both will have tremendous and long-drawn repercussions.
(Writer: Vivek Mishra / Monish Tourangbam; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
For Nepal, balancing India and China is challenging; expecting it to also balance America and Beijing would be walking a tightrope. For India, regaining space lost to China will be a long haul
I go to Nepal twice a year. Once during Holi and the other on Tihar (Nepali bhai dooj) that comes after Dussehra. The normal format is: Fly to Kathmandu, spend two to three days there, then fly to Pokhara for a two-week trek and then revival. The pre-Holi Kathmandu weather this year was a spoilsport — cold, bleak and rainy — amid the Corona scare, though Nepal had registered just one case and that figure remains intact even today. Just this week, Nepal went into total lockdown till March 31. One-third of its population of 30 million people works abroad, mainly in the Middle East, South-east Asia and India. Their earnings account for nearly one-third of its gross domestic product (GDP) of $35 million.
Many Nepalese wear face masks throughout the year in Kathmandu and elsewhere due to garbage and pollution. Everything appeared normal at the Tribhuvan International Airport, including the temperature gun aimed at people. The country has for the moment cancelled its inaugural Sagarmatha Sambad, a three-day conference on climate change, which Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali said would be postponed to October. He also said he was pleased with India-Nepal relations now that the Foreign Secretary-level Kalapani dialogue is about to start shortly and the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) report appeared on the horizon.
My lecture at Nepal’s Institute for International Cooperation and Engagement on a holiday (Saturday, March 6) was well-received. It was preceded by a presentation on the Coronavirus and the world economy. The theme of my presentation was: “India-Nepal Relations: Mind the Gap — Where China Fits in.” The Kathmandu Post, the capital’s leading English newspaper, was recently stung by a stern rebuke by the Chinese Embassy for reproducing a syndicated column on Coronavirus by a former US Ambassador, who was critical of China. While this intrusion was condemned by the Nepalese media, not a word was said by the Prime Minister KP Oli-led Government.
During the royal rule, the Chinese used to say that they do not interfere in the internal affairs of the host Government. This is now a thing of the past. That the Chinese assault on freedoms guaranteed by the Nepalese Constitution went officially unresponded was not surprising. Any similar affront by India would have attracted loud and collective protests by the media and the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP), which is inarguably pro-China. Clive Hamilton’s Silent Invasion: China’s Influence in Australia and Jonathan Manthorpe’s Claws of the Panda: Beijing’s Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada are books reflecting on China’s global outreach and blatant intrusions.
Like in the rest of the world, politics is on long pause in Nepal. Reason: Oli’s health and the spread of Coronavirus. The main topic of discussion after Oli received his second kidney replacement is his political rejuvenation. Unless his health deteriorates, rendering him dysfunctional, he will continue to lead the country by remote control. Fortunately, the Coronavirus epidemic appears controlled for now and life goes on happily without fear or scare throughout Nepal.
I arrived in Pokhara a day before Holi on an Air Buddha flight, which took all of 25 minutes. The only BMW in Pokhara, belonging to Nepali Congress’ Buddhiman Gurung, drove me to Lameahal, 15 km east of Pokhara. Holi is celebrated on the 6,000 ft high newly-built Manithan temple at An Phu village, where the bhale (male chicken) or boka (male goat) are sacrificed till the brown hilltop turns red. The pujari (priest) has to first persuade bhale and boka to accept becoming the sacrificial offering before their beheading by the khukuri-wielding priest. Side by side, dry colours mix freely with local dance and drinks as tribal Gurungs bring out their best. From Lameahal, one has to cross the Seti river on a swing bridge, climbing about two hours to reach An Phu top, which makes for a healthy
daily trek.
Meanwhile, with regime change in the Oli-led NCP unlikely till next elections in 2023, it is the latent power struggle between Oli and party president Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda that is making the gossip. Given Oli’s uncertain health, Prachanda has played his cards cleverly to ensure that sooner than later, the power hierarchy in Kathmandu could look like this: Madhav Kumar Nepal, former Nepal Prime Minister, Jhalanath Khanal, the President of Nepal, and Prachanda, the undisputed president of the party. The opposition Nepali Congress in Nepal, like Indian National Congress, is on a decline. Nepali Congress (NC), which was split into three factions — SB Deuba, RC Poudyal and KP Sitaulla — has two additional wings: The Koirala legacy and Ganesh Man Singh groups. Both NCP and NC will have their first and 14th general conventions in 2021.
While in NC, Deuba remains the top leader, other parties have opted for joint or collective leadership to avoid infighting. For example, the royalist Rashtriya Prajatantra Party, which merged recently, has three presidents. The Rashtriya Janata Party (RJP) has a six-member presidium led by Mahanta Thakur. The Samajwadi Party (SP) has a triumvirate leadership — former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, Upendra Yadav and Ashok Rai. The RJP and SP, who together rule number two province, are considering merger after unification talks. They have been pressing the Oli Government to amend the Constitution, incorporating pending issues of the Madhesis, janjatis and marginalised communities.
Two years on, the Opposition parties are complaining that the ruling NCP is besieged by scandals — gold, wide-bodied aircraft, NCell and a close aide of Oli, Banskota — and misgovernance but have no alternate vision plan to offer. While China will ensure the NCP stays united and the Government does not fall, India is loath to being seen as having favourites or indulging in regime change. The Government is seized with matters like the US-sponsored Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and the Indo-Pacific, which are seen as means of challenging China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and containing it. Die-hard communist members of NCP are unwilling to countenance this. For Nepal, balancing India and China is challenging enough; expecting it to also balance the US and China would be walking a tightrope.
For India, regaining space lost to China will be a long haul. In the meantime, it can invest in improving its declined image, damaged by the blockade of 2015, which gave rise to anti-Indianism and fillip to China. It has chosen a competent and promising Ambassador, Vinay Kwatra, for the job. On March 18, when I was at Pokhara airport bound for New Delhi, one of my Nepalese friends made this irresistible offer: “Mehtaji, why don’t you stay in Lameahal till the Coronavirus dries up?” Back in Noida, I am confined to Ram Vihar instead of climbing to An Phu top and breathing a daily dose of crisp Himalayan air.
(Writer: Ashok K Mehta; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
The global wave of uber nationalistic politics has accelerated exclusivism, polarisation and divides that are normally an anathema to the inclusive and apolitical moorings of a soldier
In participative democracies, the principle of civilian supremacy over the military is both mandated and essential. In democracies like the US and India, which have active combat commitments towards the armed forces, the orders to partake, intensify or withdraw from such roles ultimately come from the civilian leadership. This lends itself to strategic and operational situations where the military has to abide by civilian orders even where it disagrees as the latter has the “right to be wrong.” Such disagreements have led to subliminal civilian-military tensions, which are natural and expected in the normal course of professional disagreements.
By constructive design, the military has a black and white instinct of situational imperatives, which are supremely effective, kinetic and blunt. Whereas by nature, a political decision is more complex, asymmetric and given to the “unapparent.” This implies that the military may pay the price for partisan politics that comes along with the decision-making process in democracies. Yet, the most compelling argument for persisting with this imperfect civil-military equation is the alternative track record of nations, where the military has the last word on governance matters. The ideal leadership requirement for civilian politicians is in maintaining professional respect, mature restraint and operational independence of the military so as to ensure that its apolitical discipline, efficacy and steel is maintained.
In recent times, unrest and violence in society has posited the public faith and trust onto the “soldier” even higher when all other arms of governance seem to have failed. Unfortunately, the Indian armed forces, who ought to be the “last recourse” of the Government, are getting increasingly requisitioned to bail out the beleaguered State as it fumbles from one man-made or natural disaster to another. They have been doing it all — from fighting insurgency in Kashmir to quelling communal riots in Delhi to setting up Coronavirus-related camps across country. The “soldier” seems to epitomise solutions for all societal, natural or national urgencies.
However, this public imagination and perception of the “soldier” has not gone unnoticed to the overzealous politicians, who are increasingly and unhealthily co-opting the imagery of the “soldier” onto their own image, policies and posturings. This situation could potentially narrow the required distance and apolitical bearing of the armed forces as it risks pushing the “soldier” towards political opinions, preferences and biases. Xenophobically nationalistic and self-obsessed leaders like US President Donald Trump typify the sort of political leadership that milks the image of the “soldier” as he tries to justify his tenure decisions — for them, populism, even at the cost of long-term impact on the armed forces, is par for the course.
The recent case involving the Special Warfare Operator chief, Eddie Gallagher of the elite US Navy SEALs (Sea, Air and Land) team, is symptomatic of the political interferences in an institution that prides itself on discipline, command and ethos of the warfighters. These “frogmen” are the ultimate warriors of covert operations, who had earlier “taken out” Osama bin Laden and conducted many other acts of daredevilry. The SEALs personify the finest soldering, training, culture and compliances that are required to undertake complex and dangerous missions.
The SEALs wear a revered pin called the “trident” or “the bird,” which is freighted with incalculable heft and pride on the chest of a serving officer. It is extremely hard-earned and easy to lose, should one fail to live up to its exacting physical, moral and psychological standards. Rear Admiral Collin Green, as the Commander of Naval Special Warfare Command (which oversees SEALs and their special operations and missions), had sought to withdraw the symbolic pin from the errant SEAL, Eddie Gallagher, as he found his conduct unbecoming.
Rear Admiral Green was keen to clear the Augean stable of war crimes, murder, drug issues and sexual assaults among others that had tainted the institution in recent times. The open-and-shut case of Eddie Gallagher had been one such professional dereliction that warranted corrective disciplining.
Unfortunately, this incident offered Trump an opportunity to exhibit his misplaced sense of political “muscularity” by defending the errant SEAL, much against the professional assessment of his Commander and the institution of the armed forces. Amid disconcerting murmurs, Rear Admiral Green had to acquiesce to the presidential and unwarranted political intervention in a routine disciplinary case. His professional concerns of the “ethically misaligned” combatants were rubbished and the dignified “soldier” was left with no option but to step down earlier than required. Military culture lost, politics won.
Creating divisions within the uniformed fraternity may result in short-term political benefits for politicians but it could immeasurably weaken the sword-arm of the nation. Certain institutions and entities need to be spared the interferences and appropriations that are borne out of compulsive politicisation and partisan one-upmanship. Such misplaced political enthusiasm needs to be nipped in the bud, else politicians get emboldened by their own liberties and recklessness. Trump has unconvincingly posited his intervention towards “sticking up for our armed forces” — nothing could be further from the truth as command-and-control and unimpeachable discipline are the backbone of military professionalism. Trump will most probably be replacing Green with another two-star SEAL, Wyman Howard, who has a questionable past. He is said to have encouraged his men to carry hatchets during combat deployments.
Politicians do not understand the intricacies, sensitivities and traditions of the armed forces. To them, the “soldier” serves the limited utility of contextualising political decisions “in the interest of the soldier” and thereby, “in the best interest of the nation.” A global wave of uber nationalistic politics has accelerated these tendencies of exclusivism, polarisation and “divides” that are normally an anathema to the inclusive, apolitical and simple moorings of a soldier, who swears by his paltan (battalion), regiment and to the nation. Ever-increasing operational deployments, invocations and allusions have exposed the “soldier” to the societal morass that prevails. The duty to protect the “soldier” from political misuse is one of every serving soldier and veteran. Militaries that avowedly shun political appropriations remain strong and professional. Those that don’t, resemble political parties.
(Writer: Bhopinder Singh; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
The US-Afghan peace deal has complicated matters. Russia and China have moved dexterously to protect their interests in the region. Both can leverage ties with Pakistan to contain the Taliban
Afghanistan’s peace process has stumbled as talks between the Government and the Taliban in Oslo, Norway, could not begin on March 10, as President Ashraf Ghani’s rival, Abdullah Abdullah, held a parallel swearing-in ceremony on March 9, repudiating the results of the September 2019 election. Abdullah had challenged the 2014 verdict, too, but accepted a US-brokered deal, wherein he was to be made Prime Minister, but was instead given the designation of Chief Executive Officer. In Afghanistan, observers believe that Abdullah enjoys more support from major political parties and players.
On March 10, the UN Security Council unanimously recognised the Doha deal (February 29, 2020) between the US and the Taliban as part of “significant steps towards ending the war” in Afghanistan and to provide “sustained support” to achieve peace through negotiations. However, experts observed that the Doha deal contradicts US commitments to the internationally recognised Government headed by Ghani. The resolution was amended to allow Beijing to promote the Belt and Road Initiative for reconstruction of Afghanistan while Moscow inserted a paragraph regarding “the urgent need for all Afghan parties to counter the world drug problem with the goal of combating traffic in opiates originating from Afghanistan.”
Washington’s hurry to sign the deal with the Taliban without resolving the deadlock in Kabul does not bode well for the region. Many have questioned the bilateral pact as the Taliban did not renounce the Al Qaeda and made no commitments regarding the rights of Afghan women (the excuse for the 2001 invasion) or human rights of Afghans. The Taliban pledged to prevent the use of Afghanistan’s territory for terrorist attacks on the US and “its allies” but was silent about its bases in Pakistan, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who escaped to Pakistan in 2001 with Osama bin Laden and Sirajuddin Haqqani.
Excluded from the deal, President Ashraf Ghani refused to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners in exchange for 1,000 Afghan Government prisoners but later offered to release 1,500 by the end of March and the remaining 3,500 in groups of 500 every fortnight after the intra-Afghan talks begin. Ghani is demanding reduction in violence as the Taliban continues attacks in rural areas though it has spared cities and district headquarters after Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar had a telephonic conversation with US President Donald Trump. Ghani also wants all released prisoners to give a written promise not to return to the battlefield. The Taliban insists that all the 5,000 prisoners must be released before talks begin.
The deal is contentious as it puts the fate of the new Kabul Government in peril as few expect the Taliban to settle for power-sharing. Reports from Washington suggest the US Government has “persuasive intelligence” that the Taliban will renege on its promises; Trump admitted on March 6 that the Taliban could “possibly” overrun the Afghan Government after troops withdraw. Pointing out that at the pinnacle of the Taliban power in 2000, only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had recognised the regime, Brookings scholar Bruce Riedel said President Trump’s agreement “is strikingly reminiscent of Nixon administration’s deal with North Vietnam in 1973, which excluded the South Vietnam Government.”
Former director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, observed that the deal lacked a meaningful enforcement mechanism and peace between the Afghan parties requires continued US support to the current Government and retaining at least some military capability in the event of large-scale conflict. He said the bilateral agreement opened the door to differing interpretations about what was agreed, as already evident in the prisoner exchange issue. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has admitted that the Taliban made over 70 attacks on the Afghan Government forces after signing the agreement and said the accord would not move forward if the Taliban reneged on its promises.
Some observers wonder if complete troop withdrawal is envisaged, as this would mean shutting nearly 400 US and coalition bases, including camps, forward operating bases and combat outposts. Given Washington’s renewed assertion vis-à-vis Moscow, Beijing and Tehran, it is unlikely that it would give up bases in Afghanistan, the heartland of the great game. The alleged secret annexures to the Doha deal possibly include retention of bases, with passive US military presence.
There are misgivings in Kabul. A day before the pact was signed, Afghan Vice President Amrullah Saleh recalled the horrors of the Taliban rule from 1996 and said people fear a return to that medieval wasteland, which Pakistan will use to spread its influence across Central Asia and against India. In the recent elections of 2019, a suicide squad attacked his office, killing around 30 people, including two of his nephews. Akram Gizabi, chairman of the World Hazara Council, said the deal is based on American war fatigue and Zalmay Khalilzad is an old associate of the Taliban from 1996, when the US Government held secret negotiations with the Taliban to build oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan.
Currently, most analysts believe that Pakistan’s intelligence services, particularly the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), could emerge stronger if the talks produce some kind of power-sharing between the Taliban and the Kabul Government. A stronger Taliban will quickly overwhelm the regime and increase Pakistani heft in the region, at least for some time. But this could also encourage groups like the Tehrik-i-Taliban (Pakistani Taliban) to try to take control of the Pakistani State. Islamabad could, thus, find itself riding the proverbial tiger.
Clearly, Washington’s initiative has complicated matters in Afghanistan, in both the short and the long term. Russia and China have moved dexterously to protect their interests in the region and both can leverage their ties with Pakistan to contain the Taliban, if necessary. Washington also needs Pakistan to stabilise the region; Islamabad will have to show smart diplomatic skills. Iran will lean on Russia and China.
New Delhi cannot use Islamabad’s good offices to establish working relations with the Taliban, should it manage to seize power in Kabul. The IC-814 experience is fresh in many minds. India contributed handsomely to Afghanistan’s reconstruction in the post-Taliban years, especially towards the rehabilitation of landmine victims.
We have much to offer a Government that desires infrastructure development, trade and extraction of the country’s untapped mineral resources. The invitation to be present at Doha was not only recognition of India’s positive contributions but also highlighted the failure of multilateral attempts at peace, such as the Heart of Asia process. India will have to watch how events unfold in Kabul.
(Writer: Sandhya Jain ; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
The verdict serves as a warning to sexual predators that they aren’t above the law; they can’t get away
How the mighty have fallen and what a victory it has been for the #MeToo movement. The once influential and now disgraced Hollywood film producer, Harvey Weinstein, has been found guilty of rape and sexual assault and will now spend 23 years in prison after the New York Supreme Court held him accountable for committing a criminal sexual act in the first degree and third-degree rape. This verdict should serve as a warning to all predators that they are not above the law; they can’t just get away with it. Hopefully, it will lead to deterrence in workspaces around the world and stricter gender justice codes. Of course, this is not the last we are hearing of it because the sentence only ends Weinstein’s New York trial, which began on January 6. He is yet to face other rape and sexual assault charges in Los Angeles. For his conviction on the first-degree count of criminal sexual act, Weinstein was given 20 years in prison plus five years of supervised release. On the other convicted charge, third-degree rape, he was given three years in prison. The judge decided to make the sentences consecutive, rather than concurrent, to prolong his pain. To add to the movie mogul’s well-deserved shame, the court will also formally register him as a sex offender. The legacy that the 67-year-old hot-shot film-maker would have liked to leave behind was a repertoire of well-made movies that would be viewed and appreciated for all times to come. Instead, Weinstein’s will be a lifetime of shame that he and his family, which has since then left him alone, will have to face due to the verdict. His legacy is now clouded by abuse, harassment, rape and intimidation of over 100 hapless women and the lifelong scars and trauma they had to live with after he sexually assaulted them.
One hopes that this verdict brings a sense of justice and closure to his victims and gives other women around the world, who are facing abuse — at home, work or elsewhere — the courage to call out their tormentors. It has reassured women that they are not to be blamed for their condition. It was not their “ambition”, “dress”, “make-up”, “location” or “that hour of the night”, which was responsible for their plight but sexual predators like Weinstein, who must be held responsible for their actions. That it was this global calling out that got the producer such a major sentence is something even his lawyers have admitted to. If anything, the Indian criminal justice system must take a few lessons from the Weinstein episode: How to expedite such cases, convict criminals speedily and not let the case drag on for years. The Nirbhaya case is yet to be closed as the convicts are trying every trick on the rule book to defer their hanging. Culprits must not be given the liberty to make a mockery of the legal system and exploit every lacunae to subvert justice. We also need to learn not to let power and money influence the way the case goes, not to indulge in victim shaming and instead put the perpetrator on trial, not the victim.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
While the contagious phase of COVID-19 may ebb and the communist regime may deny the PLA’s role in the battle, the world may not see it in the same light as before
The sudden apparition of Coronavirus on the world stage was unexpected for Chinese watchers. However, it is bound to have deeper implications than the Tiananmen massacre for the future of the Middle Kingdom. Even if the situation stabilises in the next few months, or by the end of the year, the community of nations may not see it in the same light. Undoubtedly, the role of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will continue to be discussed for long after the contagious phase of COVID-19 is behind us. From day one, a PLA unit, the Joint Logistics Support Force (JLSF), has been at the centrestage of what the communist party of China called the “people’s war” against the “demon” virus.
When I say day one, it means nearly two months after the deadly virus surfaced in Wuhan. The communist authorities were lax between December 1, 2019, when The Lancet’s epidemiological retrospective investigation showed the first confirmed case with symptoms of the novel Coronavirus pneumonia, and January 23, 2020, when the JLSF troops first arrived on the scene.
But what is JLSF? The body was created on January 11, 2016, as part of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s in-depth military reform measure. According to Xinhua, the JLSF “comprises the support forces for inventory and warehousing, medical services, transport, force projection, oil pipelines, engineering and construction management, reserve assets management and procurement.” Coincidentally, it is based in Wuhan. The first task given to the JLSF of the Central Military Commission (CMC) was to build the Huoshenshan Hospital, an emergency speciality field facility that accommodates 1,000 beds. Believe it or not, it was constructed in just eight days.
At first, 450 Army personnel were flown in to Wuhan. They were joined in by 1,400 military medical staff on February 3 and 2,600 additional medical personnel from the armed forces on February 13. Today more than 10,000 troops (including the militia also serving under the CMC) have been deployed.
Though the Generals were probably reluctant in the beginning, it became clearer to the Communist leadership in Beijing that only the PLA could save China. On January 29, Xi, who is also the CMC Chairman, had to personally intervene to exhort the military to save the nation. And the party. He ordered the military to win the battle, emphasising the importance of “keeping in mind the purpose and carrying the burdens.” He exhorted the troops “to keep the original spirit,” adding, “Our Army is a child soldier of the people, breathing with the people, sharing the same fate and connecting hearts.”
The PLA had to face its own problems. The crew of the Type 054A multi-role frigate, Changzho, carrying anti-submarine missiles had to be quarantined. The Navy admitted the fear of an outbreak and the captain of the frigate, Yu Song Qiu, and a number of sailors were placed on lockdown. Shore leave rules for crew members aboard the Shandong were tightened to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on China’s second aircraft carrier. By the end of January, there were 54 declared cases of virus in Sanya in Hainan Island where the Shandong is based.
At the same time, the CMC started regulating the relations between the PLA and the civilians: Thirteen forms of activities were banned, including receiving money/securities and asking non-military organisations/individuals to provide money or commodities. Corrupt officers were warned: No illicit enrichment would be permitted.
Probably sensing the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the PLA to participate in the risky operations, the CMC opened a life insurance scheme for those personnel going to the “frontline.” It further declared that those, who would die combating the virus, would be named “martyr” by the Chinese State.
But the real challenge for the JLSF was to control the spread of the virus in Wuhan, which is the strategic hub for the defence industry — it has more than 350 research centres and industrial institutes as well as 1,700 hi-tech enterprises covering aerospace, satellites, rocketry and biotechnology. The future of all these institutions remained undecided.
According to Xinhua, China had to postpone its military recruitment drive, scheduled for the first half of this year to support the country’s epidemic prevention and control work. Wu Qian, the spokesperson for the Ministry of National Defence, asserted: “Approved by the State Council and the CMC, the postponed conscription will be combined with that of the second half, which will run from August 1 to September 30.” Though Wu said that the overall annual recruitment targets would remain unchanged, experts believe that the PLA could be badly affected.
This was also the time when an enigmatic personage appeared on the scene. Chen Wei, a 53-year-old leading Chinese epidemiologist and a Major-General in PLA, is known for developing the world’s first gene-based vaccine on Ebola in 2014. She was also apparently involved in combating the SARS outbreak.
According to the International Business Times, the controversial Major-General injected herself and her six-member team with an untested Coronavirus vaccine. She has created quite a stir on Weibo by her radical approach, especially after she was posted in the Wuhan lab from where the COVID-19 strain could have escaped (the Chinese authorities denied this).
Was this just a gesture to prove her loyalty to Chairman Xi? Just a month ago, Chen had taken over the controversial Wuhan lab, originally a civilian research lab, partly funded by the French Government. When he visited the research facilities in February 2017, Bernard Cazeneuve, the then French Prime Minister, declared: “France is proud and happy to have contributed to the construction of the first P4 high bio-safety laboratory in China. …This cutting-edge tool constitutes a central element in the achievement of the 2004 inter-governmental agreement on Franco-Chinese cooperation in the prevention and fight against emerging infectious diseases.” Something obviously went wrong.
For India, it is important to analyse the implications of the PLA’s involvement in the battle against the virus. Will the JLSF emerge stronger? Can the PLA become a threat to the party, just in case the “people’s war” against the “virus” is won by the Army? Will it re-emerge stronger despite Xi’s efforts to restrict the Army’s influence? What will be the implications for the PLA’s preparedness on the borders with India? It may be too early to answer these questions but even though PLA activities on the Tibetan plateau have reduced due to the outbreak, intrusions were reported recently from Naku-la, south of the watershed in Northern Sikkim, a border said to be “settled” by China. It is quite ominous.
(Writer: Claude Arpi ; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Mohammed bin Salman has detained family members seen as threats to his rule yet again
Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who uses the self-styled moniker of MbS, has been projecting himself as an energetic reformer, a modernist with a deep understanding of and respect for what the people, especially the youth, want. The grandiose plans laid out by him to pull his country back from the dark ages, especially with its dipping oil potential, through a series of economic and foreign initiatives, have received international acclaim. But the fact remains that no matter how benevolent he might want to be seen as, he is an absolutist and autocrat. He has no qualms in stifling criticism over the image he has crafted, locking up not only fellow members of the royal family but activists, religious moderates and even young economists questioning his “Vision 2030” programme. Not to forget the hit he purportedly ordered against columnist Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey. So his latest crackdown on his family, including two senior princes, over treason, isn’t shocking. Clearly, this is another move to stamp his authority over the entire kingdom, which until now was headed by powerful branches of the ruling family. The detention of the two princes means there cannot be any more challengers. Clearly, he doesn’t want the ghosts of his controversial ascension to haunt him. Breaking all norms, he was appointed the youngest heir apparent in Saudi history despite being the seventh son. Other members of his family, including the more experienced cousin Mohammed bin Nayef, who has now been detained, were sidelined or placed under house arrest. He may silence the royal house but can he silence the growing criticism over his transformational intent?
When he took over in 2017, Bin Salman at first was carefully progressive, allowing women to drive, cracking down on hardliners, diversifying the country’s oil-based economy, jumpstarting non-oil industries and making technological advancements. In the process, he ensured that the supremacy of the royal house wasn’t diluted, claiming that revolution could come only from the highest seat of power and not from the people. That explains his provocative crackdowns on the the intelligentsia, which has elicited international condemnation. And now that his modernisation and economic uplift are in tatters — oil prices have plunged about 30 per cent since January — Bin Salman has only his strategic worth to fall back upon. For the US, to counter Iran, and for India, to neutralise Pakistan.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Jack Welch’s legacy will be debated for decades to come but the iconic American businessman was good for us
General Electric (GE), the firm that never forgot to remind us that it was founded by American inventor Thomas Alva Edison, came to be known as The House that Jack Built in the last decades of the 20th century. Jack Welch was the man who took the company to new heights during his stint as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of GE for two decades. The market value of its stock rose from $14 billion to more than $400 billion, an eye-popping increase of 2,700 per cent. His management mantras became staple reading at business schools across the world. Yet, after he retired, his high-handedness, which included some obnoxious views on executive compensation and unemployment as well as revelations about some of his decisions while he was at the helm of GE, would have tainted his reputation. His ruthless leadership style and penchant for slashing jobs had earned him the nickname of Neutron Jack. While there were 24,000 GE employees back in 1980, by 1995, that number had fallen to 6,720. His successor, Jeff Immelt, whom he hand-picked, eventually spun off some of Welch’s more extravagant operations, including much of GE Capital, the company’s financial services arm.
However, no matter how his legacy is remembered in the business world, India will remember him as the man who took a punt on the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) sector with GE Capital. While this business was grown by very capable Indian lieutenants such as Raman Roy and Pramod Bhasin, it was Welch’s decision to establish the call centre business in the country and take advantage of our huge untapped source of human capital that must be fondly remembered. Welch set into motion a series of events that allowed the country to dominate the burgeoning Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) sector. Much of the BPO operation is today run by the spin-off company, Genpact, but one could argue that the tremendous growth of this industry in Gurugram and Noida, seen at the turn of the century, is in no small part due to Welch. While it is true that Indian companies such as Wipro and Infosys would have emerged nonetheless, GE’s confidence in India gave countless American corporations the confidence to use Indian firms to deliver back-end services. For this one fact alone, Welch should be remembered in New Delhi and Bengaluru as the American who had an outsized impact, much more than any other.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
India must get real and finally engage with the Taliban if it wants to be strategically relevant in Afghanistan
India has finally decided to get real on Afghanistan and agreed to attend the signing ceremony of a landmark peace deal between the US and the Afghan Taliban in Doha, following which American troops would withdraw from the region. For years, we have invested in developing infrastructure and humanitarian missions in that nation but refused to connect with the Taliban, predicating its significance to our Pakistan-centric vision, and abhorring it simply because Pakistan was its patron. While we insisted on an Afghan-led reconciliation, fearing that the Taliban would magnify Pakistan’s proxy war in our backyard, the Taliban regained its influence. And though our western neighbour may still continue to have a hold over it, we have to build a bridge to avoid strategic alienation. Or allow the Taliban to harden its outlook towards us. This is the reason why big powers like the US, Russia and Iran have been reaching out to the Taliban for geopolitical reasons. At least, India’s presence at the deal ceremony signals a willingness to engage, considering that we have lost much while being left out of the reconciliation process. We must also not stereotype the Taliban as an extension counter of Pakistan but recognise changes within it. It is now ready to engage with the world in consonance with diplomatic norms. One thing is clear, over the last three years, the Taliban has come to control almost half the territories and has changed its rules of engagement simply because it doesn’t want to be reviled or isolated, but wants acknowledgement and acceptance. Time and again, its spokespersons have expressed a desire to work with India, in a bid to shake off the dependency on Pakistan. More importantly, India’s allies in the region, both Russia and Iran, are cooperating with the Taliban and could play a mediatory role.
Pakistan’s interests in Afghanistan will continue to be India-centric, trying to erode the goodwill of India’s development work by peddling its own insecurities about our hegemonic potential. It will also try to bring in the Taliban to expand the scope of its proxy war over Kashmir. Besides, Pakistan’s military establishment would want to deepen its proximity with the Taliban to quell its own separatist sentiments at home, like that of a unified Pashtunistan. If India wants stability in the region, then it must neutralise Pakistan’s chokehold on the Taliban and work separate back channels with it. It cannot rely on past understanding and rigidities. Ignoring the Taliban means empowering Pakistan. Besides, India’s consistent support to the democratically-elected Afghan presidents since 2001 — Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani — have completely lost its counterweight value. If the recent results of the Afghan election are any indication, then Ghani has a really thin margin of victory. Undoubtedly then, the Taliban is almost on an equal footing and is already questioning Ghani’s credibility. It is even attempting to talk to “intra-Afghan” factions, according to a statement by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. We may have scored high on our soft power capabilities and have acceptability among Afghan people but if we have to matter, then we must not be a reluctant neighbour. We must reach out to all players in Afghanistan but independently and without referencing others.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month