Is Trump’s proposed India visit an attempt to deflect from the constant coverage of his impending impeachment trial?
No matter what you think of Donald Trump — almost everybody in the world has an opinion about the one-time real estate mogul and reality television star who is now the 45th President of the US — one cannot deny the fact that the man has a nose for news. Rather he ensures that he stays in the headlines. After becoming the third President to be impeached by the US Congress, his impending trial in the Senate, the Upper House of the US legislature, is scheduled to begin shortly. The controversial targetting of Iranian General Qasim Solemani set in motion a series of events that led to the Iranians accidentally downing a Ukrainian civilian airliner, killing 176 people. At the same time, the race to choose who will stand against Trump in the 2020 US presidential election from the Democratic Party is getting hotter with the first few US States going to the polls in February and March. It may not be a bad time for Trump to spend a few days outside, particularly in a country whose leader is very close to him. Indeed, Trump was more impressed than most leaders when he attended Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s rally, Howdy Modi, in his country.
It is highly unlikely, although not impossible, that Trump’s impeachment will be passed by the US Senate given that the Republican Party has a majority in the Upper House. Trump’s visit to a major US collegiate event earlier this week also displayed how he remains popular among his base, no matter what the media might say. He remains the favourite in the presidential election, particularly with the US being one of the few large economies in the world that is continuing to do very well. His visit to India in late February will also shore up Modi’s image, which has taken a battering after widespread anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests. Of course, there is the old adage that birds of a feather flock together with regard to Trump and Modi. But there’s no doubt that India-US ties have been on the mend over the past decade with the Modi Government only strengthening it. If Trump visits with Melania, he could always go to the Taj Mahal for a photoshoot on the “famous” chair, something that his predecessor could not manage. But Trump should realise one thing: This is one country where his favourite fast food, a McDonald’s Cheeseburger, is not available. One wonders if he will still visit India after discovering this fact.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Pakistan’s Islamic revolution is eating its own children. It needs to be reversed by an Ataturk-type of powerful leader but the Army has been thoroughly radicalized
The paroxysms of religious intolerance increasingly engulfing Pakistan and sections of its civil society, not to mention the frenzied anti-India exhortations of its favourite militant outfits, are inexorably pushing the nation towards political incoherence and religious apoplexy, from which return to sanity seems unlikely.
Two recent events best exemplify this trend. One is the attack on Nankana Sahib Gurdwara (January 3) led by the brother of Mohammad Hassan, the boy who allegedly abducted Jagjit Kaur, daughter of a senior gurdwara official, from her home in August 2019 and forcibly converted and married her. Reports suggest that ahead of the court hearing on January 9, police entered the Hassan family home and arrested some members. Enraged, Hassan’s brother collected a crowd, surrounded the gurdwara, pelted stones on pilgrims and threatened to convert all shrines into mosques. As authorities moved to control the situation, he issued an apology on video.
In India, the incident embarrassed political parties opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and forced them to condemn it. The ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Congress and the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) protested near the Pakistan High Commission in Delhi, which was placed under tight security.
The second and more serious incident concerns Pakistan’s treatment of its own citizens. Junaid Hafeez, a teacher in the literature department of Bahauddin Zakariya University, has been languishing in solitary confinement since March 2013, after an Islamist group claimed he had made blasphemous remarks during a lecture.
A gold medallist, Junaid was studying medicine at Lahore’s prestigious King Edward Medical College when the poet in him surfaced; he moved to Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, to study English literature. In 2009, he went to study American literature at the Jackson State University, the US, on a Fulbright scholarship and returned to teach at his alma mater. Here, in the university’s growing Islamic environment, he pushed for secular debate around different topics. Though eminently qualified for a permanent faculty position, the Islamist student group on the campus, the Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba, wanted the post to Islamise the department. Suddenly, blasphemy charges prevented him from getting the job.
One accusation was that Junaid shared blasphemous content on a Facebook account, which has never been linked to him. Nevertheless, Junaid, then just 27-years-old, was jailed and his career ruined. When lawyer Rashed Rahman was assassinated (2014), advocate Asad Jamal courageously took the brief, despite several death threats. On December 21, 2019, Junaid Hafeez was sentenced to death for “outraging religious sentiments” (under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code that was introduced in 1986 by Zia ul-Haq). His parents have appealed to Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, pointing out many problems — from refusal to hear the case, constant transfer of judges and delay tactics by the prosecution — to deny justice to the young teacher. Many journalists and writers have supported them.
Within Pakistan, critics question the very need for this law, pointing out that it inhibits reforms in Islam and sanctions death for words, cartoons and other forms of free thought. They point out that critique of a religion does not mean violence against that faith or deny the rights of its adherents. Instead, the blasphemy laws undermine basic human rights.
Asiya Bibi, a poor Christian woman, received the death penalty in 2010 for alleged blasphemy, and Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was assassinated for supporting her and trying to take up cudgels against the well-known abuse of this law. Taseer said the Pakistan of Mohammad Ali Jinnah did not have such a law and such a cruel punishment. Claiming that Islam provided for the protection of minorities, he promised to take her appeal to the President, for pardon. As the case became an international cause célèbre, the Supreme Court of Pakistan acquitted her in October 2018, citing insufficient evidence. However, as frenzied mobs came on the streets chanting that they would not let her leave Pakistan, it was only in May 2019 that she was discreetly flown to Canada, where her family had already been given asylum.
It is an open secret that Pakistan’s blasphemy law is a weapon to harass individuals or groups for personal or petty agenda or to persecute religious minorities for vicarious majoritarian satisfaction. Invariably, the accused are unable to defend themselves and have to suffer painful imprisonment before receiving capital punishment, though the Supreme Court has often overruled judgments of the lower courts for having poor evidentiary value. At times, however, the apex court has upheld the sentence, leaving the luckless accused with no recourse but to beg for pardon from the President. Along the way, intrepid lawyers have lost their lives, fighting for justice, dignity and human rights.
Vigilantism, as seen at Nankana Sahib, has become the new confession in Pakistan. Rabble-rousers reminiscent of the Dominican monk, Girolamo Savonarola, but without his piety and learning, exhort intolerance of secular dissenters and minorities as a national creed. Mini-tyrants populate every village and city street, sniffing out potential victims. Former President Zia- ul-Haq’s tweaking of the British-made blasphemy law (that India junked because Hindu dharma has no canon and, therefore, no law, and Pakistan retained because it was a religion of the Book) has rained hell on its poor victims.
As of now, there is no one who can put the genie back in the bottle. Many lament that Jinnah’s plea for a secular nation, made on August 11, 1947, before Pakistan was officially born, was not honoured by the elite of the new country. Some say the speech was optics at the behest of Lord Ismay to stem the communal frenzy and bloodbath. Others say that the communal passions unleashed by Jinnah to achieve Pakistan had assumed a momentum of their own and could not be controlled.
Secular thinkers in Pakistan assert that there is no blasphemy law in the Quran or in any Hadith or in the writings of the dominant Hanafi school. Blasphemy is a man-made device to control dissidence or torment innocents, who may have earned one’s ire for some petty reason or other. In Asiya Bibi’s case, it was drinking water from a pot reserved for Muslims.
Pakistan’s Islamic revolution, like all revolutions, is eating its own children. It needs to be reversed by an Ataturk-type of powerful leader but the Army has been thoroughly radicalised. Islam has become Pakistan’s cul-de-sac; the way in is the only way out.
There has been a clear fissure in the traditional Labour preference among all subcontinental ethnicities with Indians warming up to the Conservatives in sizeable droves
Recently, the UK elected 650 members to the House of Commons on December 12 for the third time since 2015 even though Governments over there are elected for a five-year tenure. The history of the British Raj (1858-1947) and the subsequent imprint, relationship and presence of subcontinental diaspora in the UK have made these elections relevant for the diaspora community and the Indian subcontinent as well. Accounting for nearly five per cent of the approximately 68 million population, subcontinental ethnicities have a significant stake and impact in the impending Government formation in the UK. Indian diaspora is the largest foreign ethnicity in Britain, comprising 2.3 per cent of the total population. This is followed closely by Pakistan with 1.9 per cent and Bangladesh at 0.7 per cent. Subcontinental ethnicities contribute about 25-30 seats to the Parliament.
Till recently, subcontinental ethnicities have had an overarching bias towards the Labour Party, which accounted for nearly two-third of the subcontinental parliamentarians. However, there has been a clear fissure in the traditional Labour preference among all subcontinental ethnicities with Indians warming up to the Conservatives in sizeable droves. After the post of the Prime Minister, the number two and three positions of the Chancellor of Exchequer and the Home Secretary respectively were held by subcontinental ethnicities in the previous Conservative Government. Much earlier, four members of the Indian ethnicity were in the Conservative Theresa May’s Cabinet. Subsequently, there were three (out of the 32 member Cabinet) in the previous Conservative Boris Johnson Government.
This is symptomatic of a shift in ethnicity, acceptance and wooing of the Indian sensibilities within the Conservative ranks. The all-important post of Home Secretary was entrusted to Preeti Patel, who held crucial responsibilities such as national security, terrorism and immigration issues. Whereas Alok Sharma was the International Development Secretary and Rishi Sunak (son-in-law of Infosys co-founder, NR Narayana Murthy) became the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In the latest “People’s Cabinet” of Boris Johnson, all three have retained their important positions.
A drift from the earlier Labour fixation had resulted in the Conservatives banking on one million ethnic votes for the first time in the 2015 national elections. However, by the 2017 national elections, post-election surveys showed that the Conservatives had probably raced ahead of the Labour in attracting Indian ethnicities. Data from an ethno-religious perspective confirmed a 49 per cent preference for Conservatives by the Hindu and Sikh communities as opposed to just 41 per cent for the Labour.
A change in global geopolitics, too, has evolved India’s narrative and perceptions have made it more amiable towards “traditionalist” Western parties. Take for example, the Conservatives in the UK or the Republicans in the US as opposed to “internationalist” parties like the Labour or the Democrats. The hard Left moorings of the Labour leadership under Jeremy Corbyn had the sort of “revolutionary” vocabulary that was anachronistic with agenda, including renationalisation, debating class wars and scrapping nuclear deterrents among others. This undid the sort of progressive direction set by the “New Labour” liberality of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who had sought a balance between capitalism and socialism. This Labour extremism led to serious accusations of harbouring anti-Semitic sentiments and concerns prevailed over Corbyn’s “softness” on security concerns, including his description of the operation to take out Osama bin Laden as “yet another tragedy.”
From an Indian perspective, Corbyn’s positions, activism and actions have been a matter of concern with him signing multiple motions, expressing concerns on the happenings in India. The Labour Party had interfered in the Indian affairs and passed a party resolution that read, “Crucially, it calls on the Labour Party, the Government in waiting, to clearly and vocally support the Kashmiri people’s right to self determination and for international observers to be sent to the region immediately. The resolution also calls for an intervention of the party at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).” The implied intent and reference to the so-called “self determination” was clearly political overreach and loaded.
Expectedly, the Indian Government expressed its deep displeasure. The Indian High Commission withdrew its annual courtesy of inviting the UK’s Opposition leadership for Independence Day celebrations. The Chair of the Labour Party, Ian Lavery, was left to do the damage control and renege from the earlier stand adopted by Corbyn but the damage was done and was in the coming for some time.
Meanwhile, Boris Johnson dialled up his charm offensive towards the Indian diaspora. He made sure that he alluded to the reassuring future of the Indian doctors in the much-discussed, National Health Scheme (NHS). The gaffe-prone Johnson had half heartedly and conveniently referred to himself as the “son-in-law” of India, as the mother of his second wife was of Sikh faith. Johnson’s patent bluster had a decidedly ethno religious context and target that militated more in the face of ethnic Pakistanis in the UK. The ongoing public and very personal slugfest with his successor, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, (of Pakistani ethnicity) had not endeared him to the British Pakistanis either. In a deeply hyphenated framework of India-Pakistan divide, this pushed the Indian ethnicity even more towards the Conservatives and the Pakistani ethnicity towards the Labour Party.
Given that the Conservatives romped home with a thumping 80 member majority over Labour, this augurs well for the Indian diaspora. Many Indian community groups had willingly ousted even Indian-origin Labour parliamentarians as none of them stood up in favour of India in the House of Commons to denounce the violent protests in front of India House.
The Indian ethnicity has successfully swung votes in approximately 50 constituencies and oddly enough, it seems to be the pro-monarchy “Tories” who have caught the fancy and preference of the Indian diaspora in the latest elections. While the Conservative Party and Johnson in particular have a lot to account for in the past and in the future with Brexit uncertainty looming large, Labour has shot itself in the foot. Until the option of some sort of a progressive “New Labour” surfaces, the Indian ethnicity will continue to support the Conservatives.
The brutalisation of students has unnerved academic communities in Ivy League institutions and Oxford
There is reverse classism in the current establishment, negating the educated as prejudiced, damning liberalism as an elite obsession, diagnosing inquiry as a compulsive disorder and trusting the apparent as the only explanation. While humanism by itself wants an equitable society, it doesn’t come with dominance and subversion, it comes with a healthy respect for each other, dialogue and engagement. So though Home Minister Amit Shah may insist upon our Indic responsibility to save our people persecuted elsewhere, as promised by the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), he doesn’t want us to make much of the mindset behind the religion-based approach to asylum seekers. Or think that once linked with the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which relies on a complex process of documentation and could push out existing citizens as it has in Assam, it demonises the minority. Or that the majoritarian nationalism could swamp ethnicities as it has in Assam and Tripura. And if civilisational memory is what we need to revive, then exclusion was never our credo, something that students are reminding us because we ourselves have failed them in upholding what we preach. It is this failure to listen to the full story that is having a ripple effect on civil society. Now the protests in campuses over CAA have found echoes in top global institutions, including Oxford, Harvard, Yale and MIT. Over 400 students from different US universities have issued a joint statement expressing solidarity with Jamia and AMU students and condemned the brutal police violence as a gross violation of human rights. Students and scholars at Oxford University even staged a protest march to India House in London over a “direct attack on foundations of a democratic society.” Protests are also being planned in Zurich and Berlin, the last a crucible of how a polarised world could crumble under the weight of rigid lines. The Government would probably dismiss these as disruptive voices from the extended family of “urban Naxals” and consider them inconsequential to its larger purpose of Hindu revival. By that logic then, the entire community of academics and premium centres of learning are irrelevant to the Hindu cause simply because they don’t translate into votes. If the bull-headed short-sightedness of the Government is to be believed, then students everywhere have been delusional enough to be fooled by a country-specific agenda of India’s fragile Opposition. The establishment must realise that this is a collective conscience call of a democratic society that has come under the sharpest attack in recent memory. It is, perhaps, the first non-political hitback of the fear and distrust of the Modi Government in its current Hindu-only overdrive.
The brutalisation of students has clearly cost us our global perception as a tolerant society and though it would be easy enough to draw comparisons with crackdowns elsewhere, do we really want to be in the company of autocracies? Whether the Government admits it or not, it has had trouble explaining itself on lockdowns in foreign capitals, even in nations which had respected its right to abrogate Article 370 within its Constitutional space. Perhaps, more questions are being raised about India’s societal churn as we are blitzed with conquest-like images of a Howdy Modi event. But crushing students, who are the first-line protectors of a democratic legacy everywhere in the world, has been our undoing. Apologists would argue that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, someone whom Prime Minister Narendra Modi considers a personal friend, had to postpone the proposed summit meeting here because Guwahati was supposed to be the venue. Couldn’t that be shifted? Two Bangladesh Ministers called off their visits although their Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is “friendly” towards India. Anti-India travel advisories and positions taken in Western capitals against our sectarian approach have impacted our international image. The Government has clearly overreached itself in pushing both NRC and CAA down our throats. For a while, there has been no big bang talk of reforms or projects that fires the national imagination. What we forget though is that we do not have the heft of China yet to live down the war of perception. That’s precisely because the world respects us as a different Asian power and expects us to keep democracy alive.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
A record number of Indian-origin MPs were voted to the UK Parliament but not all might end up being friends of India
Fifteen of the newly-elected Members of Parliament (MPs) in Westminster will have Indian roots. And while 15 out of 650 MPs might not seem like much, this is an assertion of how influential the British Indian community has become. At least two or three MPs of the Conservative Party, which won a stunning victory, are expected to become members of the Cabinet, including Priti Patel and Rishi Sunak, the latter familiar to some Indians as Infosys-founder NR Narayana Murthy’s son-in-law. There were several Indian-origin MPs from the Labour Party as well and their number included Lisa Nandy, who some are pegging as a potential candidate for leading the Labour Party following the planned resignation of the current leader, Jeremy Corbyn. While most Indian-origin MPs of the Conservative Party are generally seen as pro-India — there was a concerted effort within the Indian community to consolidate behind the Conservatives after Corbyn’s statements on the Kashmir issue and his previous statements sympathetic to terrorist organisations — it is not as if Labour’s Indian origin MPs are anti-India. But given Labour’s extreme position on some issues, it is almost certain that its MPs will be critical of the Indian Government’s stance on several issues.
This is something that the Modi regime must be prepared for as such MPs, while being the biggest advocacy group for Indian interests, could also end up being the biggest critics of policies back home. The Chennai-born US Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal has been leading attacks in the US Congress against the Modi Government. Several first and second-generation Sikh immigrants in politics, particularly in Canada, have been openly advocating the Khalistani cause. Just because someone holds an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card does not make them a “friend” of India. Our diplomats and policy-makers should never forget this. At the same time, the Modi Government’s overt support to certain Indian organisations that are weaponising the Indian diaspora politically is a good move. For example, many of Jayapal’s constituents are from the Indian community working in the Greater Seattle area’s IT industry, dominated by Amazon and Microsoft. Hundreds of them have written to her criticising her stance on Kashmir, making her realise that she cannot take the community’s vote for granted. We should celebrate the success of our diaspora in every field, including politics, but we must not for one second forget that they do not owe their allegiance to India and are not “Indians.”
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Pakistani and Indian expatriates are far removed from the changing reality of domestic politics
Nine years ago, when I was heading the media department of a British organisation, I observed how most British expats in Pakistan voted in the UK 2010 parliamentary elections. Even though most of the Karachi-based Britons were reluctant to divulge which party they voted for, some eventually did tell. It turns out nine out of the 12 had cast their votes for the Conservative Party, two for the Liberal Democrats and just one voted for the Labour Party.
Two of them told me that since the early 1980s, a majority of British expats around the world have preferred to vote for the Conservative Party. British expats have the right to vote in their country’s parliamentary elections but this right lapses if they have lived outside the UK for more than 15 years. Last year in Washington DC, during a session on the electoral behaviour of expat Americans, most speakers were of the view that a majority of them tend to vote for the Republican Party. No significant data was shared to corroborate this but some former US ambassadors attending the session claimed that most Americans working in Asian and South American countries vote for the Republican Party and that this has been the trend since 1980.
The session concluded that expats — at least American and British — were likely to vote for conservative parties. This is interesting, because over the last few years, there have been many reports published and columns written about expat Pakistanis and Indians overwhelmingly exhibiting support for Centre-Right parties such as the PTI and the BJP.
Indian expats were given the right to vote in their country’s elections in 2010 but those holding dual nationalities still cannot. Pakistani expats were given this right in October 2018, during the by-elections. Though 7,461 expats registered online to vote, only 6,233 cast their votes.
The phenomenon of most Indian and Pakistani expats demonstrating support for the BJP and the PTI has been repeatedly observed but never fully studied. The answers may lie in a study published in the May issue of the Oxford Academic Journal.
The study, conducted by two American political scientists, AC Goldberg and Simon Lanz, concentrated largely on European countries but they argue that the results can be relevant for other countries too.
One of their conclusions was that the voting preferences of immigrants are often contrary to those at home. This is because their social, political and economic contexts are different. An issue in the country of origin will have a more abstract impact on expats residing in a different environment. The impact of the same issue on those living in the home country is more tangible. This might be the reason behind the somewhat different understanding of the issue among the two sets of voters.
A 2006 study, by the Dutch economist Jan Fidrmuc and econometrist Orla Doyle, came to the same conclusion after studying the voting behaviour of Czech and Polish migrants in Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America. The results of this study indicated that the political preferences of immigrants change significantly because they adapt to the attitudes prevailing in the host country.
Fidrmuc and Doyle found that most Czech and Polish migrants living in Europe tended to vote for Right-wing parties at home but interestingly, those living in African and Middle-Eastern countries preferred Left-leaning parties. The economic and political environment in Europe and Africa and the Middle East differ. So expats in Europe, after experiencing the advantages of developed economies, are likely to understand “progress” in their home country through the lens provided to them by their experience in developed countries. Thus they tend to support home parties promising progress along these lines.
But what about expats from developed countries opting to vote for conservative parties? Studies suggest that British and American expats voting for the Conservative Party and Republican Party largely vote to retain their countries’ rarely-changing external policies rather than the more fluid internal matters. They are more impacted by the foreign policies of their home countries than by their countries’ internal issues. Findings of both the studies also more than allude to the fact that, outside the voting patterns of US and UK expats, immigrant voting can be fickle. Since most are likely to vote for the Opposition, they can be quick to withdraw their support once the opposition comes to power and is slow to deliver. Both PTI and BJP enjoyed overwhelming support from Pakistani and Indian expats before both were voted into power. However, the support for the two ruling parties is now receding at home and there is restlessness within the pro-PTI and pro-BJP Pakistani and Indian diasporas respectively.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani PM Imran Khan now apply separate rhetoric for their supporters within and outside the country. Outside their countries, to retain the diaspora’s support, they have to continue sounding like they did when they were in the Opposition, whereas the same rhetoric is now failing to stand up to a plethora of economic and political problems at home.
Indian historian Meera Nanda writes in The God Market that the changing world view of the Indian middle classes (and diaspora) is being shaped by the “State-temple-corporate complex.” Rich Indians are heavily investing in this by fusing Hindu nationalism with modern economics. This combination excites the Indian diaspora and they identify it with Modi.
On the other hand, what excited the Pakistani diaspora about Khan was the manner in which he tapped into the Pakistani diaspora’s engagement with contemporary identity politics by clubbing together displays of religiosity, anti-corruption tirades, populist post-colonialist rhetoric and lofty allusions to Scandinavian social democracy — which is curiously explained by him as an Islamic concept.
Whereas identity politics can lead to some awkward ethnic and sectarian tensions in Pakistan, it works well on the Pakistani diaspora. Therefore, the gap between the understanding of present-day Pakistani politics between the expats and the locals has continued to grow. Some locals have lamented that immigrants are still stuck in 2014, or in PTI’s more glamorous dharna years.
Konversations with Kapil
Twitter: @kk_OEG
On Wednesday 25th September 2019 the cat was finally out of the bag. And what may you say am I referring to? It was the day when the British Labour Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn passed a motion during their annual conference that can only be described as anti-India and pro-Pakistan. The resolution was proposed by Uzma Rasool and Seconded by Cllr Neghat Khan and supported by Naz Shah MP and Kaneez Akhtar.JKSDMI (Jammu and Kashmir Self-Determination Movement International) led by Cllr Yasmine Dar, Chairperson JKSDMI UK and Mohammed Azam were active participants for the motion and Raja Najabat Hussain, Chairman JKSDMI, was also present at the Conference. I give you this information to show the infiltration that has taken place in British politics by the Pakistani community. I refer of course to the British Labour Party which one can say is increasingly becoming Sharia compliant.
There was outrage from NRI, PIOs, the HCIL and of course from Delhi. This was quite surprising to me. After all, why the outrage? The Labour Party has not hidden it’s anti-India, anti-Modi and even anti-Hindu credentials from anyone. They have openly campaigned against India and Indian interest. Infact, it was Labour Party MPs who put forward the motion to place a Visa ban on the then CM Modi. It was the same Labour Party that objected to PM Modi and his visit(s) to the UK. It was the same Labour Party that had tabled several anti-India and anti-Modi EDM (Early Day Motions) in Parliament.
We have ALL known for more than a decade that the British Labour Party under many of its previous leaders, including its present leader Jeremy Corbyn, has steadfastly followed a course of action that has been pro-Pakistan. They do so because the huge Sunni vote bank of Pakistani heritage has leveraged its position to such an extent that politically they now control the narrative of the Labour Party when it comes to India and Pakistan.
I have written several articles since at least 2014 in which I have explicitly made it clear to all the readers the anti-India underbelly of the Labour Party. I know that both HCIL and Delhi are fully aware of the politics of the Labour Party. Yet, and this is what is so astounding, we Indians have given a platform to our enemy at every given opportunity. Some Labour MPs and Councillors seem to have a free pass to walk in and out of HCIL. They are invited to all the key functions. They are wined and dined. They are given the stage to narrate their fake support for India to keep the Indian voters on side. Even Delhi is guilty of such practice. Some Labour MPs and Councillors have had access to the corridors of power since 2014. How is that possible? Ask yourself a simple question. The Government of PM Modi allowed MPs from the Labour Party to have access to Delhi for their photo-shoots, the very political party that sought a Visa ban on CM Modi and the same political party that campaigned against PM Modi’s visit to the UK. Think about it folks, what on earth is going on with us Indians? How stupid are we that we allow our enemy into our homes to exploit us? Is this any different to the invaders who enslaved Bharat for some 1500 years? They did so because the ‘Sepoys’ of Hindustan sold the people out for their own privileges. It seems very little has changed. The white man in London still wants to tell the Indian how to do things. Only this time it’s the Labour Party.
It was only after this public embarrassment that the HCIL cancelled its dinner at the Labour Party conference. Yes, you read that correctly, the HCIL has been hosting dinners at the Labour Party conference for many years. Why on earth would the largest democracy, one of the biggest emerging economies belittle itself to a British political party that spits in its face? Is there no honour? Where is the Lion of Bharat? It has become a little kitten being patted by the British Labour Party that treats all Indians with utter contempt. Is this going to be the new emerging superpower called India?
So why is this happening? Well let’s be clear. We have operatives representing India in London, as well as those who run Delhi who have quite honestly let the side down. They have relied on their friends as advisors. The only problem, these so-called friends are in fact members (or ex-members) of the Labour Party. Think about it, we have got Indian officials who are advised by people whose first loyalty is to the British Labour Party.They know who they are, as do I. I have just heard that some of them are claiming that they had left the Labour Party many years back. Interesting because those very same people have been campaigning for the Labour Party at local elections, General Elections and in fact, even for the Pakistani Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Yes, the same Sadiq Khan who sat on his backside whilst the Pakistani goons were violating the peace outside the HCIL on the 15th of August. Think about it, the Indian Consulate was attacked by Pakistani goons whilst the Pakistani London Mayor turned a blind eye and the Police stood by and watched. Indian men, women and children at one point had to seek sanctuary within the HCIL building itself. And even after such open provocation, the HCIL thought it would be a great idea to host a dinner at the Labour Party Conference. Think about the utter madness of those in senior positions. Would a British or American consulate ever allow anything like this to happen? Never.
I highlight this uncomfortable truth so we can set the developments taking place in some sort of context. In my view Pakistan has played this brilliantly. They have over the past 4 decades spent millions of pounds to ensure that grassroots organisations, and grassroots champions of Pakistan are resourced well. Many are full-time operatives. Their sole purpose to fight the battle against India. They have infiltrated the Labour Party which is now becoming Sharia Complaint. This infiltration is embedded to such a degree that proportionately Muslims are represented significantly more when it comes to positions as Councillors, or MPs or even in the Lords. A terrorist nation such as Pakistan has used the oldest trick in the book, spend money and it has resourced its supporters so they can fight the local battle. And what has India done? Nothing in comparison. In fact, the champions of India who have fought the battle with one hand tied behind their back have never been supported. They continue the fight because they are true Indians. They do so at their own expense and they put their lives at stake each and every day. And for all their effort what do they get? Nothing. Why you may ask. The answer is the ‘Sepoys’ who are the gate keepers to the Indian hierarchy ensure that no one of competence gets through, lest they outshine them. If the PM of India wants to know whose advice he should seek when it comes to the UK (or even America) then one call to Dr Swamy will do the trick. He will tell them the facts as they are on the ground.
Whilst I have outed the HCIL for their oversight, let me turn to the hundreds of organisations representing Indians in the UK. These might be Mandirs, Mosques, Gurdwaras, community centres and so on. How many of their presidents have written to Jeremy Corbyn to demand that the motion be rescinded? How many of these organisations will entertain Labour MPs and Councillors during our upcoming Dussehra, Navratri and Diwali celebrations? You see, we are our own worst enemies. These Labour MPs who have stabbed us, not in the back – but directing in our chest facing us, will be invited to contaminate our sacred religious and cultural events. The modern day ‘Sepoys’ thrive in our organisations because we the public could not care less about what they do. Every one of us who shouts and screams temporarily on this Labour Party motion will be the same people who will remain silent when these Labour anti-India politicians come to visit our events. Not all organisations are the same though. Thankfully we have got some organisations like the Hindu Forum of Britain and the National Council of Hindu Temples that have historically exposed the true face of the British Labour Party. They get attacked from both the lovers of Labour as well as the ‘Sepoys’ from within. I take this opportunity to commend them for their efforts. If only all our organisations and leaders had the same Dharmic courage, then so much that is wrong can be put right.
Let us come back to the original point of the Labour Party passing a motion that is anti-India with respect to Jammu and Kashmir.As early as 2009 I traced an EDM in the British Parliament that is anti-India on Kashmir. It was signed by Jeremy Corbyn who was just an MP at that time. Now he is the leader of the Labour Party that wishes to form the next Government. Meaning Jeremy Corbyn wants to be the next British Prime Minister. Just take a breath and give that idea some thought. Now do you see how far back the Pakistani hand stretches. For decades they have patiently invested time, money and energy in cultivating the Labour Party so that when the time comes, they would have their support. Of course, the game is not over yet! But it’s time for India and Indians to grow up. British Indians who continue to vote for the Labour Party, let us be clear, you are traitors. Yes, that is indeed a strong word, but it represents my genuine belief of their actions. When people vote for a political party that is hell bent on destroying your ancestral heritage, then what else can we call them but traitors. I say to all of them, you alone are responsible for the mess you help to create when you vote for this anti-India party. The buck will stop at your door.
For India, for how long will you give privilege and access to those who undermine the nation? I know the Indian Government is securing advice from certain PIOs and NRIs. Let me make it clear, these people are or have been members of the Labour Party for years. Their best friends are the seniority in the Labour Party as well as in the House of Lords. Do you honestly think their advice will ever be truthful? These PIOs and NRIs might be friends of the BJP hierarchy, but they are traitors to India and Indians. It’s time people in Delhi woke up to ground reality and understand what is really at stake. With respect to the UK I have conducted a straw poll on Indian origin politicians in the Labour Party. I wrote to the MPs and also to Labour Councillors in Leicester (the city which has such a huge Indian population). Let me list out these people for your reference: Indian Origin Labour MPs: Keith Vaz, Virendra Sharma, Lisa Nandy, Valerie Vaz, Seema Malhotra, Thangam Debonnaie, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Preet Gill. Leicester City Indian Origin Labour Councillors:DeepakBajaj, Padmini Chamund, Ratilal Govind, Rashmikant Joshi Manjit Kaur Saini, Rita Patel,Hemant Rae Bhatia, Vijay Riyait, Gurinder Singh Sandhu, Kulwinder Singh Johal, Nita Solanki and Mahendra Valand.
Having sent them reminders to ensure they understood their response was required to my questions to them, to date only two have responded. What does that tell you about these Indians in the Labour Party? When faced with the truth of their treachery, they exhibit cowardice of the highest order.
The two responses (I thank them for their response):
“I am very disappointed that this motion passed at Labour Party Conference. I was not at Conference I was instead working in my constituency with schools, community groups and the police. Kashmir is a matter for India to address internally as decided by their own constitution and laws. Britain cannot preach the rights of self-determination but deny them to India itself.” Virendra Sharma MP And ‘I’m actually very pained and shocked by this motion taken by the Labour delegates. I firmly believe that it is India’s internal matter and no foreign political party has any right to intervene in such a manner. I’m writing a letter to Jeremy Corbyn along with many other Cllr colleagues and copying our respective MPs to object to it and seeking for it to be withdrawn. I have also posted my rejection on Twitter.’ Cllr Hemant Rae Bhatia.
I suspect if I were to ask every single Indian origin Labour Councillor the same questions, the vast majority no doubt would go into hiding. They care more for their seats than their heritage, their faith and their bloodline. As far as I can assess, I believe not one Indian from the Labour Party stood up on that momentous Wednesday to defend India at the Conference. Some might have been away from the conference but that still does not mean they cannot object to this absurd motion of lies and fake narrative by the Labour Party.
Where does this leave of us as far as the UK is concerned. Well fortunately the Conservative Party is actually on the side of India, broadly speaking. If you recall, it was the Tory PM Cameron who invited and gave an astounding welcome to PM Modi. Who can forget the scenes at Wembley Stadium? British politics is in a bit of a pickle at the moment. In this climate it is now inevitable that a General Election will take place. Probably in November. Under normal circumstance one would be fearful that the Labour Party might come into power. However, my reading of the situation is that when a General Election is finally called, the Conservative Party will win and come in with a working majority. This is great news for India and all Indians, but it’s no thanks to PIOs or NRIs. The proportion of NRIs and PIOs still voting for the anti-India Labour Party is still too high. I am hopeful that this final shameful act by the Labour Party has exposed its anti-Indian mindset. That as a result we will see a dramatic shift of Indian voters to the Conservative Party. We Indians need to put in power the Party that is more likely to be on our side. It may not be the perfect Party with the perfect manifesto, but our bottom line should be, will they stand by us? And if the answer is yes, then that’s where your vote goes.
The Jewish community has almost as a whole now transferred their allegiance to the Conservative Party. They faced racist antisemitic behaviour by many in the Labour Party. They saw the Labour Party passing motions against them and in the end, as a community they realised their well being in the country would be dependent not on the Labour Party, but the Conservative Party. It’s time we took a leaf out of their play book, it’s time to nail our colours to the Conservative mast.
If India and Indians cannot see the writing on the wall, then we know only too well who to blame.
Kapil Dudakia – Writer is prominent Indian voice based in U.K. & Bureau Head of Opinion Express.
Twitter: @kk_OEG
On 23rd July 2019, the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP was elected by more than 66% of those who voted as the next leader of the Conservative Party in the UK. The direct result of that momentous decision being that on 24th July Her Majesty the Queen duly appointed him as her Prime Minister.
So how did we get here and what does this mean for the UK and the rest of the world?
Ever since the debate about the UK leaving the European Union (EU) became a manifestation within British society, it became apparent that increasingly the electorate had become impatient with the EU and more importantly, they had lost trust and confidence in the EU project. So, when the then Prime Minster the Rt Hon David Cameron MP gave the nation a once in lifetime referendum to decide whether the UK should remain a member of the EU, or to withdraw, the country erupted into a national debate that both sides wanted to win. It was a fierce contest between the ‘Remainers’ and the Brexiters’, and dare I say, both sides threw everything into their preferred narrative including the proverbial kitchen sink. Like any contest, to get the core message across you require a lead person. Someone who connects the message with the mindset of the voters. In this contest whilst we had on one side almost the whole of the then Government machinery as well as the opposition politicians all united to fight to remain in the EU, you had on the other side a small group of dedicated people who had a message and were clear in their presentation. This message for Brexit was spearheaded by Boris Johnson. He became the face of Brexit, supported well by a small team of articulate politicians and others. They cut through the white noise of the Remainers and the biased media and to the horror of the ruling class, and of course the stubborn EU, the British people voted to leave.
PM Cameron resigned immediately, and the Rt Hon Theresa May MP was duly elected as his replacement. There was only one problem. She was a ‘Remainer’ and in her heart did not want the UK to leave the EU. What followed was three years of shambolic negotiations with the EU to agree on a ‘withdrawal agreement’. She failed in almost every aspect of Brexit because she made a fundamental error of entering a negotiation with a mindset of appeasing to the EU and not fulfilling the mandate of the people. It all came to a head in 2019 and as the months passed it became clear the Prime Minister had lost the confidence of the nation and her party in delivering Brexit. As she declared her resignation there was renewed hope in the nation that maybe the Conservative Party will select someone who believed in Brexit and can deliver it with sincerity.
And our story come alive as a result of this momentous decision. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was born in the 60s. He had a privileged background and went to leading private schools. Let us be very clear, he may come across as someone who does not take things seriously, and many in the UK as well as internationally assume that he might not be all that bright, that would be a huge error of judgement. PM Johnson is intelligent and shrewd in equal measure. He has an instinct for politics that you cannot teach or learn. He came into politics from a career in journalism. His first major triumph, he beat Ken Livingstone to become the Mayor of London. No Conservative politician stood any chance of winning in London. This capital city with its higher proportion of ethnic minorities has a huge predisposition to be a Labour Party strong hold. Couple that with the fact he was facing Ken Livingstone, the man who championed Labour against PM Thatcher, and a darling of the London electorate. And guess what, the Boris factor was like a tsunami. He persuaded the London electorate to elect him and elect him they did. He became the Mayor twice in a row. People should have learnt their lesson at that time, that here is a man who has the will and the determination to take on huge challenges, and he always bets on himself to win. That is a winning mentality that again you cannot teach or learn. It’s in his very DNA.
So, on 24th July PM Johnson took office. He entered 10 Downing Street and you could sense in the air, that something special was about to happen and take everyone by surprise. No sooner had he got his feet under the table and news started filtering out, PM Johnson had already sorted out most of his front-line Cabinet. Within a few hours he declared the key positions.
Chancellor of the Exchequer: Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP
Foreign Secretary and First Secretary of State: Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP
Home Secretary: Rt Hon Priti Patel MP
Secretary of State for Defence: Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP
Secretary of State International Development: Rt Hon Alok Sharma MP
Minister without Portfolio (Cabinet Office): James Cleverly MP
Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP
PM Johnson had proved his critics wrong yet again. In one masterstroke, he appointed not only an intelligent and competent Cabinet, but one that reflected equalities and diversity in its true sense. This is the Conservative Party that has become the first British political Party to appoint such a diverse front bench in the most powerful positions. We must remember it was after all the Conservatives that gave the UK it only two female leaders and Prime Ministers, so PM Johnson has taken the Party forward and way beyond all the other political Parties put together. In what can only be seen as an astonishing own goal, the politicians on the left (and the Labour Party) attacked the new Cabinet and in effect called the ethnic Cabinet members – not ethnic enough. The reality of the racist underbelly of the left was exposed for everyone to see. Can you imagine, here we have got some outstanding politicians in the Conservative Party, promoted to some of the most senior positions because of their competence, and we end up with the left exhibiting their racism for all to see. There is a clear message for the BAME communities in the UK. If you think the left are your friends, then you are seriously misguided. The left will tolerate ethnic minorities as long as they tow the line. Their objective is the enslavement of the BAME and to hijack the equalities agenda. However, today their inherent racism has been exposed for once and for all. It’s for the electorate now to understand this and take appropriate action.
Back to the developments at Number 10. As the news filtered to the media gathered outside, one could sense both shock and awe at what was unfolding. No one had predicted that PM Johnson would enter Number 10 and ruthlessly change the very make up of the Cabinet as well as the rest of Government machinery. This was a Brexit Prime Minster. He was not fooling around anymore, and in a matter of a few hours his actions sent a message to both the nation as well as to the EU, Great Britain is ready for Brexit come what may. He had made sure that everyone on his team had signed up for his vision of Brexit and of the new emerging UK post Brexit.
So, where does this leave the UK now?
There are relatively few options. My advice to everyone, don’t believe much of the rhetoric you might see and hear from the media and the biased journo’s – they have confused the debate with so much fake information that many are left confused. So, what are these options? PM Johnson secures a viable deal with the EU which is presented to Parliament and they accept it. Job done. The EU does not offer a viable deal – in which case 31st October UK will leave the EU without a deal. Again, job done. If there is a viable deal and Parliament rejects it – then on 31st October, the UK will leave the EU without a deal. Again, job done.
People will debate 101 other scenarios, none of them matter. It’s great discussion points for the Westminster crowd, but nationally it won’t mean anything. The bottom-line UK will exit the EU on 31st October 2019. What PM Johnson has done is within a few days established a totally new dialogue. One that states that he is planning for and ready for a no-deal. This has for the first time taken the EU bureaucrats off guard. Their intransigence to date left the UK with an unpalatable deal which was rejected on three occasions by Parliament. However, with the prospect of a no-deal looming, even those in the EU with the biggest of egos are now shaking in their boots. They know that a no-deal is bad for everyone. Yes, the UK will suffer for several years, but it is in a much better shape than the vast majority of the 27 countries in the EU. Those countries are already in difficult economic cycles. If a no-deal becomes a reality it will cripple the EU at the grassroots. The bureaucrats are playing a dangerous game, but I suspect as we approach the deadline of the 31st October, leaders of many of these 27 countries will openly go against the EU leadership. The cracks are there to be seen already and in time either the EU relents and accepts a deal worthy of both sides, or it will go into an abyss of its own making.
How will this affect the UK?
There is no doubt that a no-deal will impact the nation adversely. However, the freedom to pick and choose what the UK does around the world presents opportunities that hitherto had been denied because of EU regulations. There are nations already lining up to get into trade deals with the UK. Yes, I accept these will not be perfect from day one, but the fact that there are major countries willing to enter those deal is a great positive step. We have the likes of the USA, India, Australia already for a more productive relationship.
The UK has already sorted out continuity deals with: Central America, Andean countries, Norway and Iceland, Caribbean countries, Pacific Islands, Liechtenstein, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Switzerland, The Faroe Islands, Eastern and Southern Africa, South Korea and Chile. With mutual recognition agreements with the United States, Australia and New Zealand. It’s a start and dare I say; I can see this list increasing very quickly over the coming months.
15 of United Kingdom’s top trading partners in terms of export sales in 2018.
United States: US$64.4 billion (13.3% of total UK exports)
Germany: $47 billion (9.7%)
Netherlands: $33.3 billion (6.9%)
France: $31.8 billion (6.6%)
Ireland: $28.3 billion (5.9%)
China: $27.5 billion (5.7%)
Switzerland: $25.4 billion (5.2%)
Belgium: $19.1 billion (4%)
Italy: $14.1 billion (2.9%)
Spain: $13.9 billion (2.9%)
Hong Kong: $10.3 billion (2.1%)
United Arab Emirates: $10 billion (2.1%)
Turkey: $9.5 billion (2%)
Japan: $8.3 billion (1.7%)
South Korea: $7.8 billion (1.6%)
United Kingdom incurred the highest trade deficits with the following countries:
Germany: – US$44.5 billion (country-specific trade deficit in 2018)
China: – $35.3 billion
Netherlands: – $22.1 billion
Norway: – $20.9 billion
Belgium: – $15.8 billion
Italy: – $11.7 billion
Poland: – $7.6 billion
Spain: – $7.1 billion
Canada: – $6.4 billion
Russia: – $6.1 billion
So why have I presented these two lists to you? Firstly, to establish the lay of the land as it were so you, the reader, can decide what is important to you. My reading is quite simple, look at the trade deficits and you will note that many of the EU countries are dependent on selling their goods to the UK. If the EU don’t do a deal and they create a situation whereby all these countries could potentially have serious difficulties with their exports to the UK, you can see how this will play out with the population of each of those nations.
We have reached the point in the game of jeopardy where the ultimate question is being asked by the UK to the EU. Are you willing to be so stubborn that we end with a no-deal and face the consequences of a nightmare for most of the EU countries? When push comes to a shove, one side will have to bend. And I don’t believe PM Johnson will bend any further. The ball is now firmly in the EU courts. My advice to them would be quite simple, do not underestimate PM Johnson and his resolve. The UK is no longer willing to be pushed around and it would be to the advantage of the EU to cool things down and give a palatable deal. This is now their last chance. Miss this opportunity and the game is up. So, is this new Johnson Government only about Brexit? I don’t think so. By his very nature PM Johnson is very much in the centre of politics. There are those who wish to paint him and his Cabinet as far-right. Nothing can be further from the truth. Yes, he expresses some positions that are at a tangent to what one might assume, and yes, he uses very colourful language that can divide opinion, but that is the makeup of the man. It’s either take it or leave. With respect to the domestic agenda it seems to me his focus will be on:
The public services.
Immigration and its management.
Defence.
Housing and regeneration.
Transport.
And the economy.
You can see from his front bench he has got big hitters who are not shy of speaking their minds also and will put forward challenging and interesting policies. PM Johnson has hit the road running. His team had spent months planning what to do in such a scenario, and when the opportunity arose this time, they were ready to take advantage. He has caught both his own Party as well as the country off guard. The playful Boris was underestimated by too many in the media, and too many career politicians who have lost touch with the electorate. His first speech outside Number 10 was a campaigning cry to rally the troops. He is ready with his Cabinet not only to take on Brexit, but he wants to be ready for the General Election. Earlier this year the newly formed Brexit Party led by Nigel Farage gave a thumping to all the other Parties in the EU elections. They wiped the floor and became the most successful new Party. The shock-waves it sent out were and are very clear. Ignore the will of the people on Brexit at your peril.
PM Johnson has therefore positioned his Party correctly now. He has redefined what they stand for and how it fits this new paradigm in British politics. On the centre right you have the Tories and the Brexit Party. And on the left you have the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Greens. The only reason to vote for the Brexit Party is Brexit frankly. Therefore, PM Johnson in one simple precision move has taken away that reason by placing the Tories as the champions for Brexit. The Parties on the left are all fighting for the same electorate. By so doing, that vote will get shared such that no one Party on the left will have enough in our ‘First Past the Post’ election system to secure a majority. The only question that remains now is, will the Tories have secured enough votes by the next election whereby they command a total majority? In my view, if they deliver Brexit and focus on a progressive grassroots’ domestic agenda, they will win power and do so with a clear majority. Well you heard it here first folks.
Politics in the UK is in full blown fluidity. I accept that most commentators, including yours truly, are all in a difficult situation to figure out what lies ahead. I have given a perspective based on my drone surveillance from the above of what I believe is happening at the grassroots. Time will tell how much of this becomes a reality, but what I am sure about, the UK enters an era of incredible opportunity. Can we take those opportunities and harness the power of our people? Well that is the big question of our time today.
Writer: Kapil Dudakia is Bureau Head of United Kingdom for Opinion Express.
Kamala Harris, Nikki Haley, Tulsi Gabbard in the limelight
The year 2019 has a strong possibility of a woman emerging as a viable Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate in the United States, for the 2020 elections. It remains to be seen if a woman will indeed challenge the incumbent, President Donald Trump, for the White House.
The path to that distinct possibility is not hard to see: the 116th Congress which was seated on January 3, 2018, has more than 100 women members – the most in history, headed by a woman, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, in the House of Representatives. Also, the first major candidate to pitchfork herself into the presidential election mix is a woman, Democrat Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
The Indian American community, which for years and decades had its sights fixed on increasing the number of candidates in Congress – and has seen slow progress on that front as the number is stalled at four in the House, and one in the Senate – is suddenly hit with the prospect of one of their own actually becoming the most powerful politician on earth.
California Senator Kamala Harris, who is expected to announce her presidential bid soon, is one of the strongest Democrats in a burgeoning list of candidates for the nomination. The Indian American Harris, whose mother is from India, and father from the West Indies, may pitch her candidacy on national TV, as early as next week.
The Hill reported that Harris is making a return trip to “The Late Show,” and will sit down with Stephen Colbert on the CBS late-night show on January 10. It’s the same show where last month, after Colbert egged on Julián Castro, a former Housing and Urban Development secretary, about whether he would be running in the next presidential race, his twin brother, Rep. Joaquin Castro, from Texas, replied, “I’ll speak on his behalf here; he’s going to run for president.”
Apart from Harris, the Democrat Congresswoman from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard, the first practicing Hindu in Congress, is also expected to contest the presidential polls, in 2020. The progressive Gabbard is in the process of putting a team together for her initiative, and an announcement of her candidacy is expected sometime this month. She has already been endorsed by a few conservative leaning Indian American groups, who are delighted by the prospect of a Hindu getting pole position in US elections.
A terrific and exciting prospect for the Republicans is Nikki Haley, who stepped down as the Ambassador to the United Nations, on January 1, 2018. The former Governor of South Carolina, whose parents emigrated from Punjab in India, is considered a top prospect to be the running mate for Trump in 2010, if he decides to dump the incumbent VP Mike Pence. The other, and more exciting possibility for the community, is Haley running for President herself, if Trump decides to recuse himself for a shot at a second-term. What Bobby Jindal, the former Republican Governor of Louisiana couldn’t achieve, perhaps Haley will.
In the history of US elections, only two women have ever been nominated to run for the office of Vice President, the furthest they have achieved in a quest for the White House: Sarah Palin by the Republican party in 2008 and Geraldine Ferraro by the Democratic party in 1984. Here’s a brief look at how these three beloved women of the Indian American community stand at present, and what the mainstream and local press is saying about them:
Kamala Harris
Harris, who recently went on a fact finding trip to Afghanistan, to burnish her military and foreign relations credentials, is booking speeches in early primary states, reported the San Francisco Chronicle. “The Democratic Party is becoming increasingly non-white and nominated women in record numbers in 2018. As Harris is the only women of color anywhere near the top tier for the 2020 Democratic nomination, it shouldn’t be surprising at all if she ends up winning,” it said.
There is likely to be tremendous enthusiasm for Harris. Women of color powered Hillary Clinton’s sweep of the southeast in the 2016 primary. Last year, they were the base for Democrat Doug Jones’s shocking victory in the Alabama special Senate election, noted CNN.
Harris also appeals to many senior citizens, and disgruntled Republicans who have felt the repercussions of repeal of parts of the Affordable Care Act, and are struggling to find quality, inexpensive healthcare.
An essay adapted by The New york Times from Harris’ forthcoming book, “The Truths We Hold: An American Journey,” has Harris writing of the death of her mother from colon cancer, in 2009. She writes about the merits of the Affordable Care Act.
“Without the protections of the A.C.A., Americans with pre-existing conditions could be denied health insurance and insurance companies would once again be allowed to discriminate based on age and gender. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, more than 50 million Americans could be rejected for coverage by health insurers if the A.C.A. were to disappear,” Harris wrote.
“At the same time, people in their mid-20s would get kicked off their parents’ plans. Lifetime caps could come back. Out-of-pocket costs would no longer be capped. The expansion of Medicaid in dozens of states could be reversed. The human toll would be unthinkable, with some experts estimating that 20,000 to 100,000 people could die each year.
“We must fight with everything we have to avert this catastrophe. And as we do so, let’s also accept the truth that even with the Affordable Care Act intact, our health care system still needs fixing. Let’s acknowledge that there are nearly 30 million Americans who still don’t have health insurance. And there are plenty more who have insurance but can’t actually afford the rising cost of health care.”
Harris writes: “I believe that health care should be a right, but the reality is that it is still a privilege in this country. We need that to change. When someone gets sick, there is already so much else to deal with: the physical pain for the patient, the emotional pain for the family. There is often a sense of desperation — of helplessness — as we grapple with the fear of the unknown. Medical procedures already have risks. Prescription drugs already have side effects. Financial anxiety should not be one of them.”
Harris also writes, poignantly of the loss of her mother, which also highlights her proud heritage: “And though I miss her every day, I carry her with me wherever I go. I think of the battles she fought, the values she taught me, her commitment to improve health care for us all. There is no title or honor on earth I’ll treasure more than to say I am Shyamala Gopalan Harris’s daughter. As I continue the battle for a better health care system, I do so in her name.”
However, Harris has plenty of obstacles and hurdles to clear before her nomination is water tight.
The Roll Call reported that Harris’ fellow Democrat Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, said Thursday that she would support former Vice President Joe Biden, over her, in a presidential race.
“I love Kamala. But this is a different kind of thing,” Feinstein said, after she praised Biden, and was asked of support for her fellow Senator Harris. While Feinstein’s endorsement of Biden would have miffed Harris, she would be more concerned by a scathing opinion by the editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal on January 3. It reprimanded Harris for what it deemed as taking the party away from its roots, acceptance of Catholics.
“We’re still a year from the 2020
presidential primaries, but Senator Kamala Harris is already showing America how far the Democratic Party has strayed from its roots,” it noted, after her controversial manner of questioning Trump’s nominee for a federal district court in Nebraska, Brian Buescher, who is a member of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization.
“Ms. Harris’s embrace of religious intolerance is especially significant because in two years she could be the next U.S. President. What does it say about today’s Democrats that no one in the party of Al Smith and JFK sees fit to rebuke her?” the editorial said.
Harris also got the dubious honor of being named the ‘2018 Porker of the year’ by the Citizens Against Government Waste, which seeks out candidates who they fathom guilty of promoting patently flawed policies, defending wasteful boondoggles, and pushing a big-spending agenda. Harris was chosen for “proposing a bill that would subsidize rent with taxpayer dollars. Her bill would have encouraged the same behaviors that led to the student loan bubble.”
The Tax Foundation concluded that Harris’s plan, “would fail to address the root causes of the high cost of housing. Instead, it would wind up benefiting landlords, not significantly improving the lives of renters, and carrying a hefty price tag.” University of Georgia economics professor Jeffrey Dorfman wrote, “Instead of the Rent Relief Act, we could call it the Landlord enrichment and Taxpayer Fleecing Act.”
even if she were to ignore these initial hiccups on the road to glory, Harris might well take note of a letter published in the San Francisco Chronicle, from a reader who admires her, and has a warning for her.
“I am writing to ask Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., not to run for president in 2020. I think she is an admirable woman, and I am delighted to have someone with her intelligence and political viewpoint as our California senator. However, the idea that she would abandon us after less than half her first term is alarming. We need her as our senator, and we deserve to have her in that office for at least a full term.
“Besides, I shudder to think what the Trump base, the Russians, and the fringe right-wing trolls would do in attacking her as a liberal woman of color. I don’t know if the country could take this on top of the years of Trump,” the letter concluded.
Tulsi Gabbard
The young and attractive Gabbard, 37, who was born in American Samoa, was one of the first female combat veterans to join Congress and was a supporter of the 2016 presidential bid of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. She was first elected to the House in 2012, becoming the first Hindu member of Congress, and was sworn into office with her hand on the Bhagavad Gita.
Gabbard also previously served as vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, but conservative hawks love her too because she’s an Iraq war veteran who criticized President Barack Obama on foreign policy.
The Honolulu Civil Beat reported that Gabbard has expressed loyalty to a “Guru Dev” or “spiritual master” named Chris Butler. Gabbard, who announced her interest in the presidential race on MSNBC’s “Hardball”, said: “I’m concerned about the direction of the country.” That’s something a lot of voters can empathize with, especially with the ongoing government shutdown and a possible recession looming in the horizon, though the job numbers have shown robust growth.
The Washington Post reported that during stops in New Hampshire, Gabbard reportedly highlighted her support for a single-payer Medicare-for-all health-care bill and her efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics, among other policies. That position is the same as Sanders, and critics have pointed out that it wouldn’t make sense for her to run against Sanders.
In an interview to the Associated Press last month, Gabbard, who went on a limb by meeting the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad in 2017, said US wars in the Middle east have destabilized the region, made the US less safe and cost thousands of American lives, At the same time, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State group are stronger than before the September 11 terrorist attacks, she said.
“Those who have been setting our country’s foreign policy are lost,” Gabbard said, placing blame on both Democrats and Republicans. “Our policies have been without clear objective or purpose for some time. And it’s cost our country, and it’s cost the world, dearly.” When it comes to domestic issues, Gabbard stands out for doing 180-degree turns on abortion and gay marriage, noted AP.
In 2004, the then-state representative urged Hawaii voters to support a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages nationwide. She was worried gay marriages licensed in Massachusetts would be deemed valid in Hawaii. Eight years later, while running for Congress, Gabbard said she would work toward requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage. She also metamorphosed from being anti-abortion to in favor of abortion rights. The Honolulu Civil Beat reported that in Gabbard’s view the most important meaning of ‘aloha’ is love, something she said she explains frequently back in Washington, D.C., and as she travels the country.
She said she views aloha as the solution to what ails the nation, a force that motivates people to take action for “the well being of others.” Gabbard would need plenty of ‘aloha’ from both Democrat and Republicans if she hopes to achieve her aspirations. By taking both liberal and conservative views, with a balanced perspective, she would make for a good VP pick too.
Nikki Haley
The skillful Haley, who managed to stay abreast of Trump’s ire and resigned gracefully, described to NBC News how she leveraged Trump’s personality: “I got the job done by being truthful but also by letting him be unpredictable and not showing our cards.”
Haley showed her diplomatic acumen and lofty political aspirations in her last appearance at the United Nations, before she stepped down on January 1, 2018, where her speech clearly established that she didn’t want to be on the wrong side of Trump, and not having blame attached to her own self.
Reuters reported that Haley during a UN Security Council meeting on the Middle east gave no details of exactly what was in the long-awaited, unpublished plan to broken peace between Israel and Palestinians. It’s a plan prepared by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and it was widely expected that Haley would reveal the plan before she left the UN.
It’s this adroit sidestepping and deflection of thorny and controversial issues that has earned Haley accolades and admiration in her stint with the Trump administration. The New York Times reported that Haley has been mentioned as a potential running mate for Trump in the 2020 election, a move that could improve the ticket’s popularity among women voters. Trump has also reportedly asked his aides if they thought Pence was still loyal to him. Haley, on her part, made it clear after her resignation that she would support Trump in his re-election bid.
Haley, however, has not backed away from ribbing Trump. At a charity fundraiser in New York after she announced her resignation, Haley made some jokes at the president’s expense, reported The State. “When the president found out that I was Indian American, he asked me if I was from the same tribe as Elizabeth Warren,” Haley told the Alfred e. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in October, to guffaws from the audience.
For now, though, Haley is moving to New York, and has plans to write a book, on her experience of working at the UN. All that may change this year, though, if she starts to campaign and do fundraisers for Trump. What are the odds of Harris vs. Haley in 2020, or 2024? Pretty good, one can safely bet.
( Inputs from Sujeet Rajan & Pratibha Shalini – US Bureau )
Arecent government decision has the potential to blur the difference between public and private recruitment. All public recruitment agencies [UPSC, Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Railway Recruitment Board (RRB), RBI, armed forces, paramilitary, public sector banks, public sector enterprises] will use the Ministry of Labour and employment’s NCS (National Career Service) portal to disclose scores/rankings of candidates in the final stages of recruitment processes. Courtesy NIC, there will thus be an integrated information system for public recruitment agencies. This will have all the details about a candidate.
As a candidate, when I fill out an application form, I have the option of opting out of the disclosure scheme. If not, my data are there on the portal for other private and public sector agencies to use. As an applicant, I may have got through to final stages, but may not have been able to clear the last hurdle for whatever post I applied for. In that event, my data can be used by other recruiters. Take the railways. Not long ago, there was an announcement about a little more than 18,000 non-technical posts and more than nine million applied and were tested. (Sure, all 9 million don’t qualify for final stages, but that’s not relevant.) Subsequently, railways advertised for 2,54,587 non-technical posts. Within the public segment, there is a wealth of application and testing information and the private sector routinely complains about the lack of people with requisite skills. If an initiative matches excess demand in one with excess supply in the other, it can only improve the efficiency of the intermediating function.
Who is entitled to sit for the UPSC examination? I don’t mean academic eligibility, age, or number of attempts, but nationality. For the Indian Administrative Service (IAS ), Indian Police Service(IPS) or Indian Foreign Service (IFS), the candidate must be an Indian citizen. For other services, the candidate can be a citizen of Nepal, Bhutan, a Tibetan refugee (who migrated before January 1, 1962), or a person of Indian origin who has migrated from Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka, east African countries (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi, Zaire, ethiopia) or Vietnam with “the intention of permanently settling in India”.
For non-Indians, the Government of India has to issue an eligibility certificate. This doesn’t necessarily have to be produced at the time of taking an examination, but must be produced before the appointment letter is issued. For public office and public appointments, all countries, India included, have a requirement that the person must be a citizen. There are several different ways to become an Indian citizen — before the commencement of the Constitution, by birth, by descent, by registration (Section 5 of the Citizenship Act), by naturalisation. “Intention of permanently settling in India” and the consequent “eligibility certificate” sound vague and discretionary and are often reflective of historical legacies. Public office and public appointments should have the requirement of being an Indian citizen, not only for IAS, IPS or IFS, but all services. When? At the time of taking the examination or time of issuing the appointment letter? Since the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas in 2006 (and preceding amendment to Citizenship Act in 2005), there is a category known as Overseas Citizen of India (OCI). The former PIO (person of Indian origin) system has gone.
OCIs have several privileges — multiple entry, multi-purpose life-long visas, exemption from foreigner registration requirements, parity with NRIs (except in the purchase of agricultural land and plantations). Progressively, there has been more liberalisation — parity in inter-country adoption, domestic air fares, entry fees for wildlife sanctuaries (2007), employment, parity in entry fees to national monuments and museums (2009), easier proof of residence (2012). However, OCI doesn’t mean dual citizenship, at least not from an Indian perspective (the UK has a different view).
Therefore, there are three rights OCIs don’t possess today — the right to vote, right to public office and right to public appointments. But given the distinction between taking an examination and the issue of an appointment letter, why shouldn’t OCIs be allowed to take UPSC exams? Logically, it is an appealing idea. If a person is selected, an appointment letter will be issued only after the existing citizenship has been renounced in favour of Indian citizenship. This is the kind of announcement that can be made at the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas in 2018.
Note that security clearances are necessary before any public appointment is made. So security concerns are non-sequitur. If PoK or CoPoK (China occupied Pakistan occupied Kashmir) residents wish to take the UPSC examination, so be it. In the process, they will learn something about India. More seriously, Pakistan is outside the ambit of OCI. On occasion, there has been lateral entry into public service at senior levels by people who were PIOs, not NRIs. They renounced their existing citizenship and became Indian citizens. But these were isolated instances, on ad hoc basis.
Lateral entry increases competition and the broader the catchment area, the better. It is unlikely that a large number of OCIs will wish to take UPSC exams. Given the nature of the exam, it is unlikely that many will qualify, even if they wish to. even then, from the competition point of view, why not broaden the base? From the appointment point of view, becoming an Indian citizen and imbibing things Indian are easier at an age of 25 than they are at an age of 55. We have done it on ad hoc basis at age 55. Let’s do it more systematically at an age of 25.
(The writer is member, Niti Aayog. Views expressed are personal)
Courtesy: Indian Express
Rajapaksa is guardian, savior and hope of Lanka
To describe Sri Lanka as Sri Rajapaksa may be just apt for the leader who changed the destiny of the island country. There are few international leaders in contemporary global polity that have successfully changed the war torn country in a vibrant progressive democracy in their life time. The charismatic leader accelerated the pace of development of the island country by pushing various infrastructure projects that transformed the growth rate and GDP of the country from 2009 onwards. Mahinda Rajapaksa, served as the sixth President of Sri Lanka from 19 November 2005 to 9 January 2015. A learned lawyer by profession, Rajapaksa was first elected to the Parliament of Sri Lanka in 1970, and he served as prime minister from 6 April 2004 until his victory in the 2005 presidential election. He was sworn in for his first six-year term as president on 19 November 2005. He was re-elected for a second term on 27 January 2010. However due to international and domestic reasons, he was defeated in his bid for a third term in the 2015 presidential election by Maithripala Sirisena and left office on 9 January 2015. Several months after leaving office, Rajapaksa unsuccessfully sought to become prime minister in the 2015 parliamentary election, where the United People’s Freedom Alliance was defeated. He was, however, elected as Member of Parliament for Kurunegala District.
The giant of Lanka polity entered politics way back in 1970 as the SLFP Member of Parliament in 1970. Rajapaksa big break came in 1994, following the election victory of the People’s Alliance a political front led by Sri Lanka Freedom Party and headed by Chandrika Kumaratunga, Rajapaksa was appointed Minister of Labour. He held this post until 1997 when, following a cabinet reshuffle, his portfolio was changed to Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. When the United National Party (UNP) defeated the People’s Alliance in the 2001 elections, Rajapaksa lost his position in the Government. He was however appointed as Leader of the Opposition in March 2002. However in 2004 elections, the United People’s Freedom Alliance gained a slim majority in Parliament and Rajapaksa was sworn in as Sri Lanka’s 13th Prime Minister on 6 April 2004. While Rajapaksa was the Prime Minister, he also held the Ministry of Highways. Mahinda Rajapaksa was chosen by Sri Lanka Freedom Party to contest with former Prime Minister and Opposition Leader, Ranil Wickremesinghe, the leader of the United National Party in this Presidential Election held on 17 November 2005. Despite the huge election campaign led by UNP, Mahinda Rajapaksa was able to gain a narrow victory by 190,000 votes.
After becoming President of Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa reshuffled the cabinet and took the portfolios of Defence and Finance in the new cabinet, which was sworn on 23 November 2005. Immediately following his election in 2005, Rajapaksa extended the term of the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army Sarath Fonseka, less than a month before he was scheduled to retire. Over the next three and a half years Fonseka and Rajapaksa’s brother and Defense Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa led the country’s armed forces in their battle against the LTTE, ultimately defeating the Tigers and killing their leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. It was the most grueling battle that the world has witnessed in the recent times and it made Mahinda Rajaspaksa a national hero and international leader of repute.
The most challenging phase of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s political career came after he took the Presidency of the country. His political skills, diplomacy, will power and military acumen were tested by the most horrific ethic conflict that his country had witnessed. Although styling himself as a man of peace and a willing negotiator, Rajapaksa signaled his intention to end the peace process once in power by forging an alliance with the Sinhalese nationalist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna and the Jathika Hela Urumaya. The JVP had opposed the original 2002 peace process as treasonous. The agreement made with Rajapaksa included provisions which called for a revision of the ceasefire agreement to give the military broader powers against the LTTE, as well as ruling out of any devolution of power to the Tamil people.
Immediately following his election victory, a series of mine blasts blamed on the LTTE in the country claimed the lives of many off-duty servicemen and civilians, pushing the country back to the brink of war. Following the closure by the LTTE of a reservoir supplying water to 15,000 people named “Mavil Aru” in government controlled areas on 21 July 2006, the Sri Lankan military launched an offensive against the LTTE, bringing the entire reservoir under government control. Further military engagements have led to the LTTE been driven out of the entire Eastern Province of Sri Lanka and loss of 95% of the territory they controlled. The Sri Lanka government declared total victory on 18 May 2009. On 19 May 2009 President Mahinda Rajapaksa delivered a victory address to the Parliament and declared that Sri Lanka is liberated from terrorism. It was a near miracle achieved by the Rajapaksa led team and instantly he became national hero and darling of the masses in Sri Lanka.
His presidency after ending the Civil war in 2009 is known for the initiating the large scale infrastructure projects. Sri Lanka also made it into the “high” category of the Human Development Index during this time. Initiating, completing and development of many Highways, Roads, Colombo beautification project, rural infrastructure development projects are some several major projects. However the roadways are known for extremely high costs and are suspected of corruption and the large amount of Chinese loans tripled the country’s foreign debt and created an economic crisis. But Rajapaksa claimed that under him Sri Lanka started to experience a rapid economic growth and the GDP growth rate reached over 7%. However this has been disputed and after his fall the successor government revealed that GDP growth was inflated by using the year 2002 as the base year; which is usually revised once in five years. GDP growth for 2013 and 2014 which was 7.2% and 7.4% using 2002 as base year was reduced to 3.4 and 4.5 percent respectively.
Capitalising on the end of the Sri Lankan Civil War in May 2009 and coming off an election win in January 2010 and with the near-collapse of the opposition United National Party, President Mahinda Rajapaksa rallied more than the two-thirds majority in Parliament necessary to pass an amendment to the constitution removing presidential term limits. On the 9th September 2010 the Parliament passed the amendment to remove presidential term limits from the Constitution. This amendment allowed Rajapaksa to run for a third term and cement his grip on power. The move came just a day after the Supreme Court ruled that a referendum was not required to make the change. The amendment had even more even more far-reaching consequences than just term limits, including provisions that increased the president’s power
to act without oversight removing an independent advisory council that the president currently must consult before appointing people to important nonpartisan posts, like Supreme Court judges and members of the human rights and electoral commissions. A Parliamentary Council without veto power and with only two opposition members was created in its place.
In a move that was widely seen as solidifying his control over the Supreme Court, Rajapaksa removed chief justice Shirani Bandaranayake from office in January 2013, allowing him to appoint an ally and legal adviser, former Attorney General Mohan Peiris, as Chief Justice. In November 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed legal concerns about President Rajapaksa’s eligibility to seek a third term. Two years ahead of schedule, in November 2014, Rajapaksa signed an official proclamation confirming that he will seek re-election for a third term, after being unanimously endorsed by his Sri Lanka Freedom Party. The first time any Sri Lankan President has ever done so. Though his second term officially was to ends in November 2016, he could legally seek re-election after completing four years in office, a marker his office said he passed on November 19.
In the run up to the election being called several names had been suggested for nomination as the common opposition candidate: former president Chandrika Kumaratunga, UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, UNP Leadership Council Chairman Karu Jayasuriya, former Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake and leader of the National Movement for Social Justice Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero. However, on 21 November 2014, after the election had been called, Maithripala Sirisena, was revealed as the common opposition candidate by the UNP. Sirisena had been Minister of Health in Rajapaksa’s government and general secretary of the SLFP before defecting to the opposition coalition. Sirisena immediately received the support of former president Chandrika Kumaratunga and several UPFA MPs that had defected alongside him. The other UPFA MPs were stripped of their ministerial positions and expelled from the SLFP.
Rajapaksa received the backing of a number of small constituent parties of the UPFA including the Ceylon Workers’ Congress, Communist Party, Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), National Freedom Front, National Union of Workers and the Up-Country People’s Front. On nomination day, 8 December 2014, two opposition MPs, Tissa Attanayake and Jayantha Ketagoda, defected to the government to support Rajapaksa. Attanayake was later appointed Minister of Health — the post previously held by Sirisena. Rajapaksa also received support from the Buddhist extremist Bodu Bala Sena group. However, the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) withdrew from UPFA government on 18 November 2014 citing Rajapaksa’s refusal to reform the executive presidency and enact reforms to promote accountability. After much hesitation the All Ceylon Muslim Congress and Sri Lanka Muslim Congress also withdrew from the UPFA government, on 22 and 28 December 2014 respectively, blaming the government’s failure to protect Sri Lankan Muslims from Sinhalese Buddhist extremists.
Rajapaksa released his manifesto, titled Mahinda’s Vision — The World Winning Path, on 23 December 2014 at the Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall. The manifesto pledges to introduce a new constitution within one year of being elected but the executive presidency won’t be abolished — it will be amended and the “weakness” in the parliamentary system eliminated. A naval force and a special security force will be set up, with the help of the army, to tackle drug trafficking and other organised crime. The manifesto also pledges to establish a transparent, judicial inquiry into the alleged war crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War but Rajapaksa had refused to cooperate with UN investigation.
In the Presidential Election of 8 January 2015, Rajapaksa was defeated by his ex-aide Maithripala Sirisena, winning only 47.6% of the vote. Many had attributed the shocking loss to his authoritarianism, nepotism, poor governance, and corruption but fact of the matter was that anti incumbency factor and desire to see new was the reason why he lost the elections.
The domestic politics of India in Tamil Nadu has compelled India to take an arm distance approach with Rajapaksa that forced Rajapaksa to tilt towards China during his second term of Presidency. In fact, Sri Lanka government did offer preferential infra projects to India but it received lukewarm response from the Indian side. It was alleged that President Rajapaksa, during the 2015 presidential campaign and elections received large payments from the Chinese port construction fund that flowed directly into campaign aides and activities. The perception was created that Rajapaksa had agreed to Chinese terms and was seen as an important ally in China’s efforts to tilt influence away from India in South Asia. It is after his unsuccessful bid for presidency in 2015: Rajapaksa adopted a more anti-China policy opposing major development projects such as the Southern Economic Development Zone in which China planned to invest over 5 billion USD. During the opening ceremony protesters led by Joint opposition MPs ignored a court order banning protests in the area violently opposed the projects at the event in which the Chinese envoy claimed that China will ignore “Negative forces”.
But the road to recovery for Rajapaksa has started with his proxy Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna won a landslide victory in the 2018 local authority elections. They were able to secure staggering 239 Local Government bodies out of 340. The SLPP have called for the resignation of the government and for fresh general elections to be held. Mahinda Rajapaksa has realized that his Chinese misadventure was the principle cause of electoral debacle and he is gradually tilting towards India for subsequent political line up. The people of Sri Lanka have realized that without Rajapaksa in power, the prestige and economic development of the country is not possible. He is adored and loved by all section of society and it is just a matter of time that the son of soil will be back in power to serve his countrymen.
Former President & PM Mahinda Rajapaksa is interviewed by Prashant Tewari Editor in Chief Opinion Express on 13 Sep 2018.
Read More – The Statesman October Edition of Opinion Express Magazine
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month