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)
Though no major pacts were signed between the US and India, advancements were made in the important areas of defence, energy and partnership in the Indo-Pacific
Riding on the back of greater people-to-people connect, public opinion has had an increasingly critical role in shaping India-US relations, at least in the last two decades. Opinion ratings and endorsements of US President Donald Trump have reached an unprecedented high among the people in India, says a recent survey by Pew Research. This positive view of Trump surfaced most palpably during his recently-concluded visit to India. The spectacle in Motera stadium, the cultural symbolism of Mahatma Gandhi and the presidential welcome in New Delhi, all generated favourable public opinion for Indo-US relations.
On the face of it, Trump’s visit did not score very high as no major or new agreement was signed between the two countries — except for the $3 billion defence deal which is a small amount in the overall bilateral trade between the two countries. However, if we look beyond the surface, perhaps his visit served exactly the purpose it was intended to.
One of the most important developments signalling progress in bilateral relations was the elevation of ties to a Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership. Technically, it signifies a step forward in the already existing alliance between the two countries, albeit in a broader spectrum of cooperation and, perhaps, with globally-shared responsibilities.
In so far as concrete deliverables are concerned, advancements were made in three important areas; defence, energy and partnership in the Indo-Pacific. In the defence sector alone, the last three years have resulted in $70 billion worth of deals in bilateral defence aviation and technology sectors. During the visit, Trump finalised deals worth over $3.5 billion for six Apache attack helicopters worth $930 million and 24 Seahawk/Romeo helicopters worth $2.6 billion. India and the US also discussed the $1.9 billion deal for a missile defence system that would protect the Capital.
However, the bonhomie between the two leaders and the spectacle surrounding Trump’s visit overshadowed any sense of lost opportunity. On the trade front, although both sides showed confidence that an impending mega deal benefiting both the countries is around the corner, trade negotiations are not going to be easy. In fact, some of the steps from the US have signalled a hard negotiating position on trade — one that presses for greater market access in various sectors without reinstating our Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) status. The US also removed India from the list of developing nations that are exempt from investigations on whether they harm the American industry with unfairly-subsidised exports.
Besides, the US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer cancelled his visit to India due to unresolved differences between the two sides. What may have persuaded the Trump administration to persist with the trade talks is the rapidly-shrinking trade deficit with India, especially with rising energy imports. As such, the once $30 billion trade surplus of India has shrunk to $16 billion, thanks to its increasing energy imports from the US in recent times.
Besides, the energy sector is coming up as one of the most important areas of cooperation between the US and India and in the last four years, bilateral energy trade has risen to $20 billion. During Trump’s visit, ExxonMobil signed a deal to improve India’s natural gas distribution network so that the US can export even more Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to us. In the likely absence of any concrete trade deal, there are primarily two areas on which the bulk of the performance weight of the bilateral relations would rest: Defence cooperation and regional order in the Indo-Pacific, which received a thrust during Trump’s visit to India. More importantly, the defence deals have a practical significance for the Indo-Pacific region and are mutually reinforcing, given India’s security considerations in the region.
The 24 MH-60R Seahawk maritime helicopters by US-based Lockheed Martin are one of the best naval choppers today with anti-submarine capabilities, a feature that is expected to give more strategic depth in the Indo-Pacific to the Indian Navy. These helicopters can also be used for other purposes like anti-surface warfare and search and rescue operations.
The six Apaches, armed with Stinger air-to-air missiles, Hellfire Longbow air-to-ground missiles, guns and rockets are likely to pack considerable air power for the Indian Army. In the defence sector, India and the US also agreed to work towards an early conclusion of the fourth and final bilateral foundational military pact called the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation.
Furthering cooperation with India in the domain of the Indo-Pacific was a definitive plan of the Trump administration. This was depicted by the Blue Dot network push by him to rope India into the effort to “guarantee that the infrastructure of the future is built in a safe, transparent and accountable manner” in the Indo-Pacific region. Since countries like Australia and Japan are already partners to the Blue Dot network, India’s participation will further consolidate multilateral stakes there from a rules-based order perspective.
The Blue Dot network is intended to ensure that countries around the world have access to private sector-led, sustainable and trustworthy options for high-quality infrastructure development. India and the US will look to consolidate the common views of a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific through this network. Convergences between the two nations are likely to grow, especially in the aftermath of the Raisina Dialogue 2020, where the US declared an expansive view of its Indo-Pacific strategy and included the Gulf in its vision for the region, which was hitherto excluded.
With China hit by an epidemic of unprecedented proportions, the consequences of which are yet to be assessed, the timing of Trump’s visit could be significant for the advancement of US-India combined views on the emerging Asian order. Trump’s visit was an important opportunity for both sides to take concrete steps in advancing the idea of the Indo-Pacific. While the Blue Dot network is an opportunity for India to embrace it, we need more clarity on its role in advancing the economic corridor as part of the regionally-envisaged connectivity vision.
The other critical issue to come up during Trump’s visit was the purpose and nature of the Quad partnership at the level of top leadership. These discussions were a natural follow-up after all four countries met at the ministerial level for the first time in a “significant elevation” of the dialogue advance cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region in September 2019. With Australia’s inclusion in the Malabar naval exercises around the corner, it is only imperative that the two largest powers in the region, which are counterpoised to China, consolidate on this combined regional security architecture.
On global issues, while the issue of terrorism stuck out, a backchannel talk on Afghanistan found its place in the bilateral agenda. The internal situation in Afghanistan is at the cusp of a transformation with a US-Taliban deal likely to be signed in a matter of days. It is no secret that Trump wants India to play a larger role in Afghanistan’s security. With the recent announcement of the official results of the Afghan elections and the return of the Ghani Government in Kabul, a party which India recognises, New Delhi’s support “to do more” may have been underscored yet again by Trump.
The US might be aware that Afghanistan’s National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib, who was in New Delhi in January, asked India to consider deploying its troops in Afghanistan in a peacekeeping role. While Prime Minister Modi may have conveyed India’s concerns over the US deal with Afghanistan, such concerns may have been diluted by the US’ counter-concerns on Kashmir, New Delhi’s controversial domestic legislations and the violence in parts of the Capital, even as Trump was in Delhi.
(Writer: Vivek Mishra ; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Harvey Weinstein is convicted of third-degree rape and a criminal sexual act. He’s staring at just 5 years
The battle of justice for women, who take on rich and powerful men for molestation, or worse rape, is long, lonely and hard. No matter in which part of the globe they are, whether it is India, Pakistan, the UK or even the biggest and one of the most technologically-advanced Western countries in the world, the US. What else justifies the fact that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, who was accused by no less than 90 women of sex crimes, was convicted only in two cases whereas he was found guilty of raping one woman and committing a non-consensual sex act on another? It was imperfect justice because he was acquitted of the most serious charges — two counts of predatory sexual assault and one count of first-degree rape, which might have put him in a cell for the rest of his life. The jury only convicted him of third-degree rape and a first-degree criminal sexual act. So now he is looking at just five years in prison. And this was the man, who throughout his long career as a film producer, had silenced multiple accusations of rape and sexual assault with threats, denials, character assassinations, monetary settlements and Non-Disclosure Agreements. He had even scared off journalists who tried to expose his dastardly acts and bring him to justice, till tenacious journalists from the New York Times and the New Yorker brought him down with their exposés in 2017.
However, the verdict is a small victory for women around the world battling hard against their sexual predators. The Unnao rape victim, who accused former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar of rape or the law student, who tried to bring former BJP MP Swami Chinmayanand to book for raping her repeatedly, would tell you at what personal peril they managed to be heard. Weinstein’s conviction is also a defeat of the most belligerent victim-shaming and blaming tactics that are used by ruthless defence lawyers in such cases. More importantly, it broke the stereotype of what a “perfect victim” is as justice was given to the two women who did not end their relationship with their tormentor simply because he was who he was. It is a small measure of vindication for the six women who testified that Weinstein attacked and sought to intimidate them as they were put through the grinder by his lawyers. They can now feel proud of the part they played in getting the predator put behind bars, where he belongs. It is also a victory for the #MeToo movement, which was fast classified as a fad than a cause.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
While the American First Lady’s role has evolved over the years, this is not the case in India. One just hopes that the spouses of future leaders of the country will come out from under the shadow of their husbands
The only visible programme arranged for the visiting US First Lady Melania Trump, apart from posing for photographs with the iconic Taj Mahal serving as a majestic backdrop and waving at the massive crowds lustily greeting the American First Couple in Ahmedabad, was a visit to a Delhi Government school on Tuesday. This was the first time that a US First Lady visited a school in India. The visit was arranged as Melania showed an interest in the “happiness curriculum” introduced by the Delhi Government as part of its innovative move to refine the education system. It was launched on July 2, 2018 in the presence of the Dalai Lama, to help students remain stress-free. The curriculum is being taught to an estimated 10 lakh students in over 1,000 schools. The daily 45-minute “happiness class” is usually the first period for students in classes I to VIII, while Kindergarten children have classes twice a week.
The “happiness curriculum” has become one of the showcase projects of the Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Government in the education sector. In October 2019 Dutch King Willem Alexander and Queen Maxima also witnessed a “happiness class.”
The US First Lady’s role is not restricted to being just decorative and has evolved significantly since the days of Martha Washington who played hostess to visiting dignitaries during George Washington’s presidency. They have always made use of their global visits in a positive manner.
Jacqueline Kennedy, who visited India in the ’60s made a terrific impression on the people.
Indians were also so enamoured by Rosalyn Carter and her husband Jimmy that the village of Chuma Kheragaon in Haryana was renamed Carterpuri in honour of their visit. Hillary Clinton was a household name in the country and she continued her interest in India even after she ceased being the First Lady. Similarly, Michelle Obama enchanted India during her two visits.
Melania’s visit also generated quite a bit of interest as she was one of the most glamorous First Ladies to visit the country and her carefully-chosen outfits created quite a stir, with the fashion police appreciating two and dissing the third. However, apart from her obvious glamour quotient, she has kept a somewhat low profile. The Guardian newspaper once described Melania as “seldom seen and even more seldom heard. The former model may not be as popular as her predecessor Michelle Obama, but she is far more popular than her husband.”
Incidentally, many First Ladies have supported some special cause close to their hearts using their celebrity status. While Jacqueline Kennedy promoted American arts, Eleanor Roosevelt took up progressive causes, including civil liberties, Hillary Clinton came up with a new health plan, Laura Bush promoted literacy, Michelle Obama a better diets for children and so on. Melania Trump, too, focusses on issues affecting children. In the past four years she has made multiple visits to schools — both in the US and abroad. From participating in a Viking huddle class, in Michigan, to taking the Queen of Jordan to Washington DC’s first public charter school for girls at Excel Academy, Melania showed her commitment to kids. During international trips, she has visited the American International School in Riyadh and took a calligraphy lesson with local children at a Kyobashi Tsukiji Elementary School with Akie Abe while visiting Japan. Melania is also involved in an initiative to help American children that she launched in May 2018. The awareness campaign, called “Be Best,” is dedicated to children’s well-being, cyberbullying and opioid abuse.
According to The New York Times, though President Trump tried to dissuade her from getting involved in the initiative, Melania stuck to the cause. The Palm Beach Atlantic University in Florida honoured her this month as its “2020 woman of distinction.” But Melania has faced criticism for not speaking out against her husband’s tweets and actions, like the controversial separation policy where children caught on the border were split up from their parents and kept at detention centres.
However, unlike the US, there have been few visible and active spouses of Indian presidents and prime ministers. Not much is known about the wives of Presidents Rajendra Prasad and S Radhakrishnan. Thankfully, VV Giri’s wife Saraswati Bai took up a more public role and Abida Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed became an MP twice. Pranab Mukherjee’s wife Suvra was unwell most of the time and Giani Zail Singh nominated his daughter as his hostess.
Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri’s wife Lalitha was more of a housewife and most of the others followed suit. However, Sonia Gandhi took interest in her role as the hostess and Manmohan Singh’s wife Gursharan Kaur was also more visible. PV Narasimha Rao declared his daughter as his hostess and the wives of IK Gujral and Deve Gowda kept a low profile.
Sadly, most of them did not utilise their position like the American First Ladies to promote any social cause or take active part in politics.
One just hopes that the spouses of future leaders of the country will come out from under the shadow of their husbands.
(Writer: Kalyani Shankar ; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Trump is show business and in Modi, he has found a kindred soul. But will anything meaningful come out of his visit?
Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 US presidential election will most likely be repeated in November this year, considering the rate at which things are moving with the Democrats. It isn’t surprising, therefore, that Governments across the world, no matter what their personal views on Trump, hitch their wagons to his train. But unlike other pragmatic leaders, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Trump appear to have a genuine bond, at least in public. The sight of the two men holding hands at the “Howdy Modi” event in Texas dominated world media. It gave heartburn to Opposition politicians not only in India but to other leaders across the world, too. While parents teach their children that they should not look at friendships as quid pro quo arrangements, the fact is that India and the US need to leverage the relationship of the two leaders into something much more concrete. Of course, the strengthening of India-US defence collaboration is something that started under former Prime Minister Vajpayee’s tenure and was reinforced by the UPA Government under Manmohan Singh. The Modi Government is building on that edifice. India will be buying more American hardware, including helicopters and air defence systems but the signature deal that Trump wants is in trade, which seems to be very far away at the moment. America wants access for its dairy products but India is understandably wary of cattle fed with hormones and animal matter over there. Besides, there’s also the need to protect Indian dairy farmers as we are the largest milk producer in the world. On the other hand, India wants access to American markets under favourable terms and the US has said that is only for “developing” nations and as a member of the G-20, India is hardly “developing.”
Irrespective of the failure to clinch a trade deal worth just a few dollars — one of the reasons why he is not bringing his key economic aide —Trump’s visit will also need the ruling Government to do some tough answering. His appearance today with Modi will take place under conditions when our Government has failed to pass the “religious” test. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which calls for a religion-based code of identity, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the National Population Register (NPR), have put the nation on the boil, with protests refusing to die even two months after they started. The Government’s principle of challenging the very Constitution that called for “equality” of all religions by considering some to be less “Indian” than others, has led to several nations, even the UN, expressing concern over its authoritarian ways. The lockdown and detentions in Kashmir have caused much discomfort in the US, even among key Senators, who fear a subvention of democracy in the name of “Hindu India.” Allegedly, Trump has vowed not to miss this opportunity to address the issue and is bound to raise it both during his public remarks and certainly in private. He needs Pakistan to keep the Taliban in leash and will need to be seen as pushing some margins in Kashmir. If only as an arm-twisting tactic or to rile up Modi’s insecurities at a time when he wants to be seen as a hefty global leader. But we are hard-nosed, too, about business. So treat this as spectator sport; one of the biggest shows that India has ever seen. We could all laugh about the “10 million people” gaffe but there will be more people than Trump has ever seen greeting him. But nothing of substance might come out of it.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
As that nation catches a cold, the world sneezes. But the virus spread has led to a revival of crucial sectors back home
The effects of Coronavirus, now called COVID-19 by the World Health Organisation (WHO), have mostly been contained along China’s borders. Beijing declared a war-like situation to deal with its spread. It shut down all its cities effectively and Wuhan, the centre of the outbreak, became a ghost town. Streets, that once bustled, wore a deserted look. According to data from Flightradar24, a flight tracking site, air traffic in China dropped by over 80 per cent since the outbreak. Nevertheless, the spread of coronavirus forced the entire world to realise just how integral China is to the global supply chain, even when it does not produce finished products. Take the example of the Indian pharmaceutical sector, which is afraid that a shortage of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) that form the basis of many important medications, including anti-retroviral drugs used to manage HIV/AIDS, will start running out by mid-March. We are so dependent on China-sourced raw materials that they form almost 70 per cent of India’s imports of key ingredients for medicines. The potential damage this has caused to the sector cannot be wished away. Most importantly, domestic manufacturing is struggling to take off. But the long-term implications of the spread of the virus must not be missed and it has at least compelled the Government to reset its focus on local sourcing to offset the current supply disruption. In the pharma industry itself, a revival of old drug manufacturing units that once produced key ingredients for crucial medicines is on the cards. In other sectors such as automobiles, a complete shutdown in China is expected to lead to a shortage of fuel-injectors and electronic control units among other devices that are essential to meet the new BS-VI emission norms that come into force nationwide on April 1. In sectors like paints and plastics, China supplies essential dyes used for colouring. Industry insiders have warned that production lines in various sectors as also across the country will come to a screeching halt if supplies do not restart by the middle of next month. And even if they come back into the market, it might take six to eight weeks for fresh products to be shipped from China to India. The situation is so dire that even the Central Government has said that the Coronavirus outbreak can be considered a force majeure on contracts and that it can even be classified as an act of God for vendors so as to negate penalties if delivery schedules are not met. Logistical experts are working overtime to ensure once supplies start, delays at ports and at Customs points are minimised.
While there is no firm outline as to when production will restart at factories, the Chinese Government has announced that production units in Wuhan will remain shuttered till early March at the very least. However, manufacturing can happen around Beijing and the Pearl River Delta, possibly with limited production by next week. The Coronavirus outbreak must serve as a warning for Indian industries to diversify their supply chains. The Indian Government, too, must start encouraging production of critical components within the country. While this is an extreme situation, it has exposed Indian vulnerabilities to Chinese supplies. The latter is the former’s top non-oil trading partner. But statements from the Chinese Government concerning Arunachal Pradesh prove that it is still inimical to India’s interests, even if, at least once, it did support our stance against Pakistan at the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) pertaining to the farce surrounding Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar. While we live in a globalised world and it is impossible for a single nation to do everything for itself, India must use the COVID-19 outbreak as an opportunity to protect its industrial interests. This will be in the world’s greater interests as well.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Shutting down N-power plants only to replace them with coal burning is the height of illogic. Nobody is as crazy as the Germans and the Japanese
Germany and Japan are finally winning a war together. Unfortunately, it is the “war on rationality.” Coal, as everybody knows, is by far the most damaging source of energy we use, in terms of both the harm to human beings and the impact on the climate. It’s twice as bad as natural gas and dozens of times worse than solar or nuclear or wind power. Yet both Germany and Japan have been building a lot of new coal-fired power stations. But why are they still betting on coal?
Would it upset you if I said it’s because they are, despite their apparent sophistication, superstitious peasants at heart? Well, go ahead and get upset. Germany still gets more than a third of its energy from burning coal and most of it is ultra-polluting lignite or “brown” coal. Solar, wind, geo-thermal and hydropower generation provide just 17 per cent of the country’s electricity needs. If most of Germany’s 17 nuclear powers had not been shut down after 2012 (the last are scheduled to close within two years), then at least half the coal would not have been needed.
There had been an active anti-nuclear power movement in Germany for some time but what triggered the 2012 decision to shut the entire sector down was the Fukushima disaster of the previous year. I am deliberately avoiding the words “calamity”, “disaster” and “catastrophe” because while the Fukushima tsunami killed 19,000 people, the subsequent problem with the four nuclear reactors on the coast killed nobody. Yet, the German people, or at least a large number of German anti-nuclear activists, insisted that any nuclear reactor anywhere was a mortal danger and the Government agreed to shut all nuclear plants down. The country pulled a 180 and decided to embark on ending its use of nuclear power entirely.
The same thing happened in Japan. The Japanese planners were foolish to put four reactors on the coast in a region where earthquakes and consequent tsunamis were to be expected from time to time. What needs to be condemned is the decision of the planners and not nuclear power. Nevertheless, all 50 Japanese nuclear reactors, which accounted for 30 per cent of the country’s electrical power, were immediately shut down.
The Japanese are not as blindly dogmatic as the Germans: Two of those nuclear plants reopened in 2015 and seven more resurfaced recently. A further 17 are in the lengthy process of restart approval. So by 2030, the Japanese Government hopes to be getting 20 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power again. But that’s only half the amount of nuclear power that Japan originally planned to make available by 2030. The gap between 20 per cent and the planned 40 per cent of the country’s energy needs will be made up by burning coal.
Japan recently announced that it plans to build 22 new coal-burning power plants in the next five years. Its Government has argued that these coal plants use ultra-supercritical boilers that are vastly more energy-efficient and pollute less per unit of energy. But these plants still emit greenhouse gases and are a non-starter for activists who want the world to zero out carbon emissions.
This is deeply irresponsible behaviour and the worst thing is that the decision-makers know it. They are just deferring to public opinion, which in this instance is entirely wrong. The “superstitious peasants” should really be frightened of global warming, for which coal-burning is a major driver, not of relatively harmless nuclear power.
That’s not to say that nuclear power is the solution to all our problems, or even most of them. It is generally the most expensive option because it costs so much to build the reactors and the associated controls and safety devices. Indeed, nuclear is no longer cost-competitive with other “clean” sources of power like wind and solar.
So there is a case for not building any more nuclear power stations, at least in regions and countries that have ample resources in terms of sun and wind. But there is no case for shutting down existing nuclear stations and burning more coal to make up the difference. That is so stupid, it verges on the criminal.
Other countries can be idiotic, too. Due to an administrative glitch, Chinese provinces are currently building hundreds of unnecessary coal-fired power stations that may never be used, since the Central Government expects the country’s coal use to peak this year — and most existing Chinese coal plants already sit idle more than half of the time.
China is using coal power financing as a key element of its Belt and Road Initiative to expand its economic and political influence throughout Asia and Africa. Both Japan and China are now racing to secure lucrative construction contracts in developing countries to expand their strategic reach.
At least China is also building nuclear plants as fast as it can. Last year, it accounted for more than half the world’s output of solar panels. (On the other hand, it is providing work for the Chinese construction industry by building a planned 300 coal-fired power stations in other countries, presumably on the unspoken assumption that carbon dioxide emissions elsewhere won’t affect China’s climate.)
But nobody is as crazy as the Germans and the Japanese, who have been shutting down nuclear plants and replacing them with coal-fired plants. France will close its last coal-fired station in 2022 and Britain will do the same in 2025. But Germany says 2038 and Japan just says “eventually.” That’s far too late: By then the die will be cast and the world will be committed to more than 2oC of warming.
(Writer: Gwynne Dyer; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Over-the-top preps for Trump visit invite criticism. Do the poor need to be swept under the carpet?
At one end, there is the propagandist accusation that we do not own our Indianness enough as a people or aren’t proud of it. On the other end, there is this relic of a colonial obsession, rather subservience, to please the White world. What else explains our bending backwards to roll out the red carpet for US President Donald Trump? To begin with, the Yamuna will be flowing as it should, clean and swirling, for the day that Trump is going to be here. The Uttar Pradesh Government will be releasing 500 cusecs of water to clear the river of contaminants and toxic waste, making what usually is a smelly canal look like a river. On other days, Delhiites only deserve the sewage drain avatar. The one-day wonder is supposed to make us feel proud of living in a waterfront city. Poor monkeys are being chased off the Taj Mahal stretch. And in Ahmedabad, where the POTUS will be landing first, masons are hastily finishing a half-a-kilometre wall along the stretch between the Ahmedabad airport and Gandhinagar to shut off our putrid slums from the eyeline of a speeding limousine. While authorities defend the social barrier as one prompted by security concerns, the real intention is not lost, ensuring pleasing visuals of Indian exotica and a swachch Bharat to one of the most important men on the planet. As if that would soften his stand on trade ties with India. Apparently eviction notices have been served to 45 families living in another slum near the biggest cricket stadium that Trump is gushing about. Following the mantra of Atithi Devo Bhava is one thing but disowning our truths is quite the other. Yes, India as an emergent economy with a massive population has its own warts, inequities and dualities to live with. But why deny our composite existence or be insensitive to the lesser privileged? For in the end by walling off our imperfections into ghettos, we end up reinforcing old stereotypes instead of changing them and perpetuate Western biases. By acknowledging the existence of the underlings, we give them dignity, prize their contribution to society and mainstream them as a reality that has to be dealt with, not hidden away. Of course, other than the very Indian affliction of undervaluing ourselves while putting our best foot forward, there is the other problem of sustaining the myth of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s development work in his own State as Chief Minister. And a gaping slum certainly wouldn’t be a glorious ode to his helmsmanship in that capacity for 12 years. So the Modi Government is going all out to strengthen its leadership credentials even if possibilities of a trade deal with the US look remote, particularly over the thorny issue of dairy exports.
The Modi Government has gone to the extent of pulling out all stops to reinforce a crafted image of the country and promote its leadership credentials before Trump. Contracts worth Rs 85 crore, from the construction of the stadium, which supposedly has the maximum seating capacity, to the beautification of cities, have gone out to various agencies. The depreciation has already begun with Trump tweeting dissatisfaction over the way India-US ties have shaped up over trade, a clear indication that war on that front will be hard-nosed no matter what the trimmings. Questions are also being raised about Gujarat being chosen simply because it is the Prime Minister’s home State. Others are wondering if it wasn’t better for the makeover funds to have been diverted to slum cluster improvements instead. Simply on qualifiers, there were other “better-looking” States. Gujarat was ranked 22nd among Indian States in the human development index for 2018. The Maternal Mortality Rate was 91 per 1,00,000 live births in 2016 as compared to 66 in Tamil Nadu and 88 in Telangana in the same year. According to crime data, the suicide rates there due to poverty increased by 162 per cent in 2018. Last year, the UK, too, rolled out the red carpet for Trump for a formal State visit, provoking protests from none other than the London mayor who said that such treatment shouldn’t be extended to someone whose “behaviour flies in the face of the ideals America was founded upon — equality, liberty and religious freedom.” He had even highlighted Trump’s endorsement of far-Right nationalism, picking on minority groups and the marginalised to manufacture an enemy. Perhaps, there’s a commonality of perception here that doesn’t make Trump look like so much of an oddity in the first place. One would have understood if the “good friend” vibes resulted in friendly deals. But other than “feel good” vibes, which have been around anyway because of improved diplomatic ties of the last couple of years, this gush seems a tad too obsequious.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month