The policy of promoting pariah regimes and dictators increases China's strategic depth as such regimes are globally isolated and not accountable to their people

The recent news of China inaugurating its rail link to Myanmar may have been overlooked because of the Afghan mayhem. The project is a part of its sea-road-rail link under OBOR which Myanmar had joined in 2013. It connects Chengdu to Lincang which is opposite Chin Shwe Haw, a town in Myanmar's North East. Myanmar's cities of Mandalay, Lashio and Hsenwi will now see rail connectivity with other intersecting points with China.  The larger purpose of this link is to connect China to the Bay of Bengal and finally to the Indian Ocean Region.

In early August, China had transferred more than $6 million for theseprojects.  Further, in the early months of the military coup in Myanmar, the Chinese referred to the Junta chief, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, as the “leader of Myanmar”which became “government" by the time Taliban took over Afghanistan.To understand this equation, one must be aware of China's 'dictatorship diplomacy' that it practices towards regimes such as North Korea and some African states.

The policy of promoting pariah regimes and dictators increases China's strategic depth as such regimes are internationally isolated and are not accountable to their people. Their human rights violations are brushed aside and labeled as “internal matters”. In 1955,China adopted the principles of non-interference, respect for the sovereignty of others, non-aggression and peaceful co-existence. Nevertheless,this never meant that democracy had to be insisted upon. Beijing cleverly calibrated its foreign policy in contrast to the American policies of promotion of democracy and human rights.

Myanmar is no exception. Various international reports cite simultaneous Chinese arming of the ethnic military factions of Myanmar with sophisticated weapons. In the 1960s and 1970s, Beijing had adopted a policy of arming and training a few ethnic groups in Myanmar owing to their affiliations with the Chinese Communist Partydue to their ethnic backgrounds. Beijing found active sympathisers in the Communist Party of Burma (CPB) and incited them against their own government in Myanmar. Later, General Ne Wi (Revolutionary Council government) was replaced by the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) in 1974 and in the 1980s as pro-democracy movement was brutally crushed. Western sanctions were imposed on Myanmar, but China filled the military and financial void aiming not only to cut down on the Western influence but also to contain India's strategic outreach.  Throughout the 1980s, China actively vetoed UN and other resolutions against Myanmar's Junta regime and was able to strategically converge with Myanmar by labelling the US as an “interfering power”.

In 1994, China and Myanmar issued a joint Communiqué that stressed on their common “choice” of social development. Myanmar in return always stood by China on Taiwan and ‘one China' policy. From 2014-16, China was the largest military supplier to Myanmar with its arms trade totalling US$ 440 million.

This 'dictatorship diplomacy' of China may havehad two motivations. The first relates to the access to Indian Ocean by bypassing the Malacca Strait and the second is possibly tolay hands on natural resources Myanmar is known for.

China has nurtured the Junta specifically to counter the Indian presence in Myanmar.During late 1980s and early 1990s, India owing to its democratic principles had disapproved of Myanmar's military regime; China took advantage of it. The Junta had already leased Coco and Greater Coco islands to China as also important military installations near Yangon, Moulmein and Manaung and a listening facility in the Ramree Islands (in Rakhine Province). These speak of the depth of Chinese penetration. The installation of a signals intelligence (SIGINT) collecting facility at Zadetkyi Island (near Indonesia’s Sabang Island) is disturbing as it is barely 600-odd km away from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and poses a serious threat to Indian interests.

Currently, China faces its Malacca Dilemma, named after the strait, through which its major share of exports and oil imports pass through. In order to overcome its fears of India’s control it made the Kyaukphyu port of Myanmar serve as a terminal for a $1.5 billion oil pipeline and second natural gas pipeline running to Kunming in Yunnan Province. In 2007, China sealed an oil pipeline deal that aimed to link Sittwe in Myanmar with Kunming. The following year, Myanmar stripped New Delhi of its preferential buyer status and committed itself to sell its resources to China National Petroleum Corporation for the next 30 years beginning 2013. In 2009, China announced the construction of an oil pipeline through Myanmar to Yunnan. The larger objective of these pipelines is basically to avoid the Malacca Strait as a transit for its oil and other requirements. The penetration of China can only be imagined when in 2017, the road construction project in Myanmar by an Indian company- C&C Constructions -- received a setback when Indian workers were abducted by the Arakan Army and building material was damaged.

From an internal security aspect, its support to the insurgency movements of India is another objective of China. The pipelines are accompanied by a road network. In 2015, China completed road construction from the Yunnan province till the Pangsau pass on the border of Arunachal Pradesh citing trade facilitation between India, Myanmar and China. Apart from the trade, what can be the road for? In the past, the porous Indo-Myanmar and Indo-Bangladesh border have been actively used by China to supply arms via Myanmar to fuel the North-EastIndian insurgencies. The process that started after the 1962 war also witnessed active training to the Naga insurgents.

Internationally, there are many examples of China’s ‘dictatorship diplomacy’. In 1996, amidst the Western sanctions, Chinese companies purchased a 40 percent share in the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company. In 2004, when Iran was reeling under international pressure, Tehran agreed to sell to a Chinese corporation $20 billion worth of natural gas per year. This was in addition to Beijing being the largest purchaser of its crude oil supplies. In the same year, China, opposed to the pressures on Iran, invited it to be a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Similar approaches have been made in Venezuela, Zimbabwe and North Korea.

As China tries to reshape existing security architectures in its favour, the West too is recalibrating its policies. For instance, despite not supporting the military rule in Myanmar, the US government announced humanitarian aid worth $50 million to Myanmar in order to combat the Covid pandemic crisis.

Finally, one has no hesitation to put across the view that China's state practice of dealing with pariah regimes along with the democratic ones with the same ease increases the challenges for the world, especially India. Beijing has been able to carve an alternate vision of the world order that presents before the extremist groups and dictators a very lucrative source of gradual legitimization and recognition. The fundamental principles of international law which stand for democratisation and the respect of the wishes of the people are gradually being eroded which will threaten the existing security architectures across the regions.

(The writer is an Assistant Professor at Central University of Punjab, Bathinda. The views expressed are personal.)

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

India needs to be utmost cautious of the unfolding developments in Afghanistan

Of all the countries in south and central Asia affected by the recent developments in Afghanistan, it is India that needs to be extra cautious as the various Taliban factions and the Haqqani Network try to settle internal rivalries, tribal divisions and disagreements to form a government in the country. India’s stakes are the highest, given the association with terror of these groups currently trying to put together a government. Equally challenging is Pakistan’s active role in reportedly ensuring that the government-formation talks go on smoothly. Terrorist groups inimical to India’s interests exist in both the countries and it is too early to take the Taliban’s assurances about respecting peaceful relations with India at face value. Hardly did India acknowledge its first formal talks with the Afghan group than a spokesperson for the latter said that they have the right to raise their voice for Muslims in Kashmir. To add to that, the terrorist group, al-Qaeda, also said that liberating Kashmir was part of its greater goal. Fighters of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are said to be in Afghanistan, opening up the possibility of using it as a base to launch attacks against India. Then there is the Haqqani Network, which has been responsible for attacks on the Indian embassy in Afghanistan and is a declared Foreign Terrorist Organisation. Such an ensemble forming a government under the supervision of Pakistan is the biggest cause of worry for India.

Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla saying New Delhi’s engagement with the Taliban “has been limited” but “reassuring” is the very minimum he could convey without detailing the worries. India is monitoring how the Taliban factions play out the government-formation game. The Taliban is an umbrella of various Pakistan-based “shuras”, and their office is in Doha, Qatar. The Miramshah and Peshawar Shuras want their share in the power pie though the Quetta Shura appears to be calling the shots. The Miramshah Shura predates the Quetta Shura while the Peshawar Shura is relatively new. Both have drifted away from the main group to become autonomous power centres. The Quetta Shura has the experience of running an elaborate setup complete with panels arranged like ministries covering various departments. The Doha-based leaders handle the political office but the military commanders in association with the clerics are vociferous. Mullah Yaqoob, son of Emirate founder Mullah Omar, is said to be serious about bringing in some commanders into the Cabinet. Taliban co-founder Mullah Baradar, however, is pushing for political elements. The Pashtun and non-Pashtun groups are staking their claim while the non-Pashtun tribes and the Kandahar faction of the Taliban are sorting out their differences. All the factions understand they have to share power with the Haqqani Network, whose founder was considered the mentor of Osama bin Laden. The Network has no experience in administration and would settle only for “active” duties in the government. 

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

COVID-19 hastened the spread of digital education but the biggest challenge is to ensure learning in schools, and transform each one of these into a learning school

Global efforts to universalise basic education have achieved a milestone in terms of attitudinal transformation: Practically every community, or people, is not only willing but also keen to send its wards to school. It severely contrasts with the erstwhile tradition amongst most people in most developing countries, India included, which were averse to schooling, particularly sending girls to school. The global literacy percentage for all males and females is 90 and 82.7. It took more than 60 years to reach the current situation when, on any day, over one billion children should be attending schools. In this encouraging scenario, however, there are several challenges. According to an estimate, 11 per cent of primary schoolchildren and 20 per cent of lower-secondary children are not in schools. Further, there are more non-learners in schools than outside schools. Access and participation deserve continuous attention and streamlining but the biggest challenge is to ensure learning in schools, and transform each one into a learning school. The insistence on learning, and not mere schooling, is no more the concern of academics and educationists alone. The NEP-2020 is conscious of this new responsibility. To imbibe learning, the learner requires a conducive environment. Clean premises, mid-day meals, appropriate equipment, drinking water and sanitation arrangement are a must, but most important is the “Teacher”, and her/his own holistic learning and the values that were internalised at the teacher preparation institute.

The transition from mere teaching to learning is a major advancement towards the knowledge society. It finds place in most of the dynamic education policies, and NEP-2020 is explicit about it. It will have significant implications towards evaluation and examination reforms. The pandemic created unforeseen challenges before global education policies and systems. The most daunting among these is the prevailing uncertainty on how long it would take to arrive at the normal mode of face-to-face schooling. India’s education policy makers were busy finalising the new policy (after 34 years) when the pandemic struck. It was evident that education systems have to remain ever alert to such unforeseen exigencies; NEP-2020 has several indications on alternative strategies, including embedded learning, which came as a great support when children were confined home. Interestingly, what could have taken a couple of more years in utilising digital on large technologies in education was achieved in months, the remotest places not excluded. India salutes its teachers, who promptly familiarised themselves with new gadgets and techniques.

The challenge appears in its enormity in most of the Government schools that function with deficiencies and inadequacies. They are to be converted into learning schools. And they require an active, alert and conscious work culture transformation. The teachers and teacher training institutions shall have to walk the extra mile, make such changes in the totality of the institutional functioning in the light of the most prominent principle of education taught to us by Sri Aurobindo: “Nothing can be taught!” Harmonise it with the eternal truth expressed by Swami Vivekananda: “Education is manifestation of perfection already in man!” The world of education is making attempts to understand this philosophy. The Delores Commission Report of 1996, which made attempts to envision the shape of global education in the 21st century, titled its report ‘Learning: The Treasure within’. The Indian philosophical — yet fully pragmatic — basis is totally tilted towards learning, and it was beautifully articulated by Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore: “Every child is blessed with two boons at the time of birth; the power of ideas and the power of imagination.” No child is discriminated on this count. It is the transplanted system of education that has enslaved us in a system that makes every endeavour to impede the nourishment of ideas and imagination. One must hasten to add that even earlier, the importance of “learning” was pointed out in learned academic discourse, but in practice the system’s rigidity prevailed and not much came out of it. Now that NEP-2020 has proposed organisational and structural changes of far-reaching consequences, the shift towards learning and an entirely new approach in the assessment of learning attainments becomes a fait accompli.

The learning canvas shall have to be explored very cautiously. Learning to learn, and lifelong learning, would become the life-sustaining assets of every citizen to meet the concerns being faced nationally, and globally. Immediately after adopting the global agenda for the sustainable development goals including SDG-4 (“Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” by 2030) in 2015, India turned its attention to prepare a response education policy. The NEP-2020 was put to the toughest of tests. The pandemic also showed how a school becomes a learning school. Innumerable schools and teachers have responded through morally sound, ethically inspiring and culturally conducive initiatives. One must also add that the inspiration and motivation that emerged from NEP-2020 has played a great part as it has prepared teachers for transformation. It has revealed to them that every school can become a learning centre, adored and supported by one and all.

(The author works in education and social cohesion. The views expressed are personal.)

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

New Delhi, Sep 5 (IANS) Former Afghanistan Vice President Amrullah Saleh has said the Taliban are being micro-managed by Pakistan's notorious intelligence agency, the ISI.

Writing for The Dail Mail, Saleh said the Taliban's spokesperson receives directions, literally every hour, from the Pakistani Embassy.

"It is the Pakistanis who are in charge as effectively a colonial power. But this is not going to last because they and their clients will not be able to erect a functioning economy or create the civil service," he added.

"They may have territorial control, but as our history has shown, control of land does not necessarily mean control over the people or stability. And I do not see Taliban having any idea about governance," he added.

Saleh said many fighters are flocking in Panjshir to join the National Resistance Front (NRF) - anti-Taliban fighters, former Afghan security forces and ordinary Afghans who want to stop returning to the rule of the Taliban.

"For the Taliban have not won any hearts and minds. They have simply exploited the flawed policy of a fatigued American President - not necessarily the United States itself - and they are being micromanaged by Pakistan's notorious intelligence agency, the ISI," Saleh said in the article.

"Now, with the closure of the airport in Kabul, the Afghan exodus is continuing at the other border crossings and it is worse than it was during the Soviet occupation of the 1980s. This is not only shameful for President (Joe) Biden, it is shameful for the whole of Western civilisation. Your politicians know that Pakistan is running the show," Saleh said.

Saleh told his bodyguard on the way to Panjshir from Kabul: "We will fight our way through. We will fight it together. But should I get injured, I have one request of you. Shoot me twice in my head. I don't want to surrender to the Taliban. Ever."

The Crown Prince is aiming to spend over $70 billion within the next 10 years across the public and private sectors to diversify its economy away from oil

Mohammed bin Salman is described as a Machiavellian reformer, visionary, revolutionary and reactionary. It is fair to say that because of these eye-catching traits of his political activities MBS, as he is popularly known as, is being keenly noticed in Saudi Arabia and beyond.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had long been known for two things: oil and Islam — and lately for its Crown Prince. The oil-rich Kingdom has witnessed wide-ranging changes, and the man driving them is the visionary son of King Mohammed bin Salman. His admirers describe him as a hard-working, business-minded leader with no stomach for corruption and a burning desire to modernize the country while avoiding the trappings of royalty. On the other hand, his critics view him as power-hungry, ‘immature’, and someone unaware of the dangers of reforming too much too fast. Such views are hardly surprising given the rush for reform across the Kingdom since MBS was appointed as the crown prince.

MBS is already his country’s de facto ruler, and perhaps the most powerful person in the Middle East region. It was only after his father was appointed as the Crown Prince in 2012 that he began to accumulate power. The following year, MBS became the head of the Crown Prince Court and soon was made the Minister of Defense. Muhammad Bin Salman was also appointed as the Deputy Crown Prince and took over the Council of Economic and Development Affairs. There was no stopping the ambitious prince. Now in charge of the war in Yemen and Saudi Arabia’s economy, his importance as a policymaker became clear the following year when he unveiled an ambitious and wide-ranging plan to bring economic and social change to the Kingdom and end its “addiction” to oil. The destination goal for Salman was to be the most powerful man in Saudi Arabia and that meant assuming the title of Crown Prince.

After his anointment as Crown Prince, he started making moves that would shock not only the conservative Saudi Wahabbi clerics but also the world as a whole. In an interview, when he was asked what was his concept of moderation, the Prince replied: “Of course, this is a broad term. All Muslim jurists and scholars have been talking about the concept of moderation for over a thousand years. So, I do not think I am in a position to clarify this concept, as much as I can ... abide by the Saudi constitution, which is the Quran, the Sunnah, and our basic governance system and to implement it fully in a broad sense that is inclusive of everybody. This leads me to another question, namely the space Sharia occupies in the State. Meaning, on the level of the constitution, the judiciary, the public space, and the level of freedoms of individuals. As I said earlier, our constitution is the Quran, has been, still is, and will continue to be so forever.” Crown Prince is clear about the sensitive matter: “We are simply reverting to what we followed — a moderate Islam open to the world and all religions. 70 percent of the Saudis are younger than 30, honestly, we won’t waste 30 years of our life combating extremist thoughts, we will destroy them now and immediately.”

In 2016, to prepare for the kingdom’s economic future, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman laid out a road map for the country, known as Vision 2030. The plan was to transform Saudi Arabia by liberalising social norms and improving Government services. In his words, “We seek to be proud of our country, and allow the latter to contribute to the development of the world, whether on the economic, environmental, civilisational, or intellectual levels.” Such ambitious transformation projects come with very high realisation costs. The country has plans to transform the capital Riyadh into an economic, social, and cultural hub by 2030 at the cost of $800bn along with the planning of a new city NEOM at an estimated cost of $500bn. Several other multi-billion-dollar projects are planned to be completed by 2035.

Under MBS, Saudi Arabia’s tech scene has seen a dramatic transformation. The Saudi Government is pushing huge amounts of capital into the industry and attracting foreign investors in a bid to become the new economic hub of the Middle East. Crown Prince is aiming to spend over $7 billion dollars within the next 10 years across the public and private sectors to diversify its economy away from oil. And his plan seems to be working: in the last year, Google signed a $10 billion agreement with oil giant Aramco; Amazon has committed huge business in the country, and Huawei is set to open its largest flagship outside of China in Riyadh. The growing social cachet attached to the tech industry is a trend that can be attributed, in part, to Crown Prince’s own fascination with Silicon Valley. To raise funds for economic diversification, Saudi Arabia has issued debt, drawn down its fiscal reserves and VAT - a form of sales tax. The kingdom can also continue to draw from its reserves, which stood at $130bn at the end of the second quarter of 2021. Nevertheless, privatisations are likely to gain new momentum over the coming years.  

When asked about Saudi Arabia and the US, after the new administration had arrived in the White House, was there any discord between these two allies? MBS stated that they were working on maintaining relations with strategic partners in the region, starting with the Gulf countries, Arab countries, and Middle Eastern countries. They were also working on strengthening their alliances with partners throughout the world; the US, the UK, France, Europe, and other countries, as well as seeking to create new partnerships with everyone else, such as Russia, India, China, Latin America, African countries, and others. This is all to serve the interests of Saudi Arabia without undermining any other country. 

Under Crown Prince and long-serving KSA Ambassador to India, Saud Al Sati, the relationship between India and Saudi Arabia was elevated to that of a strategic partnership. The momentum for this relationship began during the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the Kingdom in April 2016, during which he was presented with the Sash of King Abdul Aziz, the highest civilian decoration awarded by King Salman. The momentum increased with the crown Prince’s visit to India, during which he and Modi discussed prospects for bilateral cooperation in all fields, along with other issues of mutual interest. And the confirmation of India as one of the Kingdom’s strategic partner countries under Vision 2030, complete with a proposal to set up a high-level partnership council.

Finally on a lighter note, when asked why he is in a tearing hurry, the Crown prince replied smiling: “I fear that the day I die, I am going to die without accomplishing what I have in my mind, life is short, and a lot of things can happen, and I am really keen to see it with my own eyes - and that is why I am in a hurry.”

(The writer is Editor in Chief of Opinion Express & columnist with The Pioneer. The views expressed are personal.)

The Talibans takeover of Afghanistan has led some to draw comparisons with the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. This is not an accurate comparison. The 1979 Revolution was a popular revolt, while the 2021 Taliban victory was a military take over. The Taliban do not have popular support in Afghanistan. They managed to walk into Kabul because the Afghan armed forces and political establishment had lost the will to fight. And that was the outcome of a growing belief in Afghanistan that Kabul could not withstand the Taliban advance. So self-preservation meant that local leaders simply let the Taliban walk into their cities and settlements.

Although the leadership of the Taliban has learned to make noises not as pungent to the international community as its earlier avatar, the common Talib remains bigoted youth grounded in intolerance and a very conservative interpretation of Islam. Even if those leaders who were based in Doha talk about tolerance and inclusiveness, the support base remains extremely conservative. This will bear heavily on the future direction of the Taliban and the policies it will adopt. Taliban is essentially a Deobandi Sunni group with the political agenda of imposing Sharia of the Hanafi School. That is an existential problem for Shias.

In fact, Iran nearly went to war with the Taliban in 1998 when the Taliban killed Iranian diplomats in Mazar-i-Sharif. This time around, Iran has been very practical in its relations with the Taliban. Iran established ties with the Taliban because it saw them as a useful tool to undermine the US in Afghanistan. And the US decision to withdraw was celebrated as a victory. But this presents difficult questions for Iran. The Taliban has been sectarian in its outlook and deliberately anti-Shia. Iran hopes that its new ties with the Taliban will prevent the revival of an anti-Iran policy.

The Iranian Supreme Leader has insisted that the Taliban have changed. But these hopes may be misplaced. While the Taliban have made all the right noises about having an inclusive government, there is little evidence that they will remain so ‘flexible' once all foreign troops are out and international attention shifts away from Afghanistan. The very clear risk for Iran is that the Taliban will establish close ties with Saudi Arabia. Riyadh was among the handful of states that recognized the Taliban in power in 1996. It is not difficult to see why Riyadh would establish ties with the Taliban again. There is an obvious sectarian affinity between Saudi Arabia and the Taliban. This is a new opportunity for Saudi Arabia to gain some leverage against Iran. The regional rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia could escalate in a new arena, and Iran would be on the back foot here.

(Shahram Akbarzadeh is a Research Professor of Middle East & Central Asian Politics. He held the prestigious ARC Future Fellowship between 2013-2016. All views expressed are personal.)

As the last batch of US marines was flown out of Kabul on August 31 ending a 20-year-long US occupation of Afghanistan, questions regarding the future of Indo-Afghan relations have rocked Indian talk shows and YouTube channels alike. The biggest worry seems to be two fold.


Firstly, will Afghanistan facilitate anti-Indian Pakistani jihadi proxies by allowing them to shift their training and operational headquarters to southern Afghanistan, and secondly, whether or not the numerous jihadi groups still active in Afghanistan, like the ISIS-K, will become the powerful rallying point for pro-jihad Islamist groups inside India.

Last week the local residents of Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) nervously gazed at members of Lashkar and Jaish returning from Afghanistan. A mullah by the name of Rahim delivered a fiery sermon to youth who had gathered to listen to him at a mosque in Chakothi just 500 yards away from the Line of Control (LoC). Recruitment of young men for Jihad in Kashmir is being carried out uninterruptedly by jihadi groups inside the mosques dotted alongside the border towns of LoC in PoK.

Simultaneously, Pakistan army troops have moved into the suburbs of Muzaffarabad, the capital city of PoK. Locals have accused them of grabbing their fertile fields and hereditary lands. A protest was held just days ago in PoK against the army land grab at Jabbara-Tap in which residents of several villages participate.

Only last week the Indian army foiled an attempt by jihadist to infiltrate the Valley via the LoC. Then on August 30 another attempt was encountered in which at least two terrorists were reportedly killed.

Amid the chaos in Kabul the situation in the region is becoming challenging by the hour. As the Taliban conduct door to door search identifying and executing those on the Black List of 'collaborators' and women are being forced out of jobs and made to wear hijabs, both Pakistan and China are lobbying among the nations of the world and vying support for the Taliban claiming that the Taliban of today are more tolerant of dissent, well versed in the art of diplomacy and are "intelligent" people.

Pakistan and China both are supporting the Taliban for different reasons. Pakistan looks at an Afghanistan controlled and ruled by the Taliban as the fulfilment of her erstwhile desire to achieve strategic depth against India. China's eyes are laid upon more than one trillion dollars' worth of natural resources buried in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Hence, the strategy to counter the terrorist threats against India hailing from Pakistan after it shifts jihadi camps across the border into Afghanistan and strategy to counter the economic expansionist motives of China require a two tier military and political strategy.

A clear and objective military strategy against Pakistan's attempts to engage the Indian army and commit terrorist attacks in the Valley is the need of the hour. In my opinion, not one but several surgical strikes should be on the cards of an Indian military strategist. One such target could be the UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) training center situated near Mangla at the foothills of PoJK.

Chinese economic expansionist tendency is linked with her objective of eliminating regional competitors. India is fast becoming a global economic powerhouse. The announcement by Japan's $64 billion Toyota Tsusho to shift some of its major manufacturing operations from China to India back in November 2020 is just one such example to suffice my argument that China will leave no stone unturned to sabotage and even engage in limited war against India.

Pakistan and China share the same views when it comes to India. They both want to weaken India. China is supporting Pakistan to achieve its objective by terrorist sabotage in Kashmir. The euphoria that has been generated by the victory of the Taliban is encouraging Indians infected with the ideology of Jihad and directing them toward a more dangerous and sinister ploy: Communalism. We have to confront it with an iron hand.

India does not have to go to war with another country. We never have. But if India's sovereignty is challenged consistently and begins to affect the progress of our nation then we are left with no choice but to strike our enemy with a vengeance both at home and abroad.

(Dr Amjad Ayub Mirza is an author and a human rights activist from Mirpur in PoJK. He currently lives in exile in the UK.)

The Govt must consider its options in remaining engaged with Afghanistan and of ordinary people who boldly placed their faith in Indian leadership

Taliban takeover of Kabul on August 15 was noisy but the desperate appeals of innocent Afghans who wanted to leave the country for securing their individual liberty could not be arranged adequately by the international community. Taliban has already taken over most of the provinces, but Kabul is the cherry topping.

India has been largely silent. As of now, it is not clear what the Narendra Modi Government’s policies are with regard to the situation in Afghanistan. On the ground, it chose to make India “speak with its feet” with Indians fleeing through Government-provided flights. But not all have left due to Talban allies’ terror in the provinces and near the Kabul airport.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi early on ordered the full evacuation of the Indian Embassy and all Indian personnel within hours of Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani’s departure from the Presidential Palace. A little earlier, Indian diplomats and staff had departed from Kandahar and other provincial capitals to reach Kabul. Most Indians have been evacuated.

At the UN Security Council in New York and UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, India has expressed its worries about terrorism, human rights and refugees, but has not mentioned the Taliban itself even once by name. And in India, the Government appears to be just as mute, as thousands of Afghans clamour for visas, and get no reply, focusing instead on the task of bringing a few hundred Indian nationals back home.

The Modi Government’s silence is in sharp contrast to the past, particularly the last 20 years till recently. India had then been at the forefront of discussions in Afghanistan and on Afghanistan. India’s role strengthened over the tenure of three different Governments in Delhi in three areas: infrastructure building and development assistance, encompassing all 34 provinces of the country; building democracy, such as in helping script the Constitution and technical assistance to hold elections; and educational investment, as also allowing thousands of young Afghans to study in India, be trained as professionals and soldiers, and become skilled.

India was the first country that Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership with, the only country that undertook perilous but ambitious projects such as a new Parliament building, the Zaranj-Delaram Highway, and the Chabahar port project in Iran, the infrastructure for transit trade. As a consequence, India by far is the one country that polled consistently highest among countries that Afghan people trusted.

It seems inconceivable and incomprehensible that the Government can choose to simply walk away from such capital invested and nurtured, regardless of the developments in Afghanistan, the domestic political considerations in India and geopolitical sensitivities of some neighbours. Therefore, it would be abdication of responsibility. The Government must instead consider all its options in remaining engaged with Afghanistan for its future and of the ordinary people of Afghanistan who boldly placed their faith in Indian leadership.

For this, to begin with, it is necessary to acknowledge the hard agonising truth that no other power from the West to the East has considered India’s interests or contribution to date, while charting the course on Afghanistan.

Such shocking blocking out of India has been found in the cut-out of several quadrilateral arrangements, e.g., the main negotiations held by the “Troika plus” consisting of the United States-Russia-China-Pakistan that pushed for a more “inclusive Government” by including the Taliban; the alternative grouping of Russia-Iran-China-Pakistan that formed a “regional arc” that has today enabled them to retain their Embassies in Kabul; and the connectivity quadrilaterals formed by the US and China, respectively, with Uzbekistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan, that depend heavily on Taliban protection and Pakistani port access. India is nowhere in these arrangements-a loud denigration of the Modi Government.

Neither India’s so-called traditional strategic and defence partner, Russia, nor its currently fastest-growing global strategic partner, the United States, thought it important to include India in any confabulation or insist that their envoys, Zamir Kabulov (who is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy to Afghanistan) and Zalmay Khalilzad (US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation), briefed their counterparts in New Delhi about the details of their negotiations with the Taliban leadership.

New Delhi was unable to assure its diplomatic staff that they would be secure from Taliban militia and their Pakistani benefactors, in order to keep diplomats in Kabul. It was able to negotiate a diplomatic outpost at Kabul airport that would allow it to place a core team as with the US, the United Kingdom and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, it is time to accept India’s diplomacy was a huge failure. This acceptance will mean that India's foreign policy needs a reset and a new diplomatic strategy.

While the Modi Government found it inconvenient to vocally protest the talks with the Taliban and the extended line to Pakistan to facilitate the talks with these “friendly” global leaders thus far, it is necessary for India to publicly decry such an outcome that has clearly worked against India's interests till now.

In order to do so, India must begin by rallying in the United Nations, to exert its influence, explicitly in its own interest, and that of the still existing on paper, the Afghan “Republic” in the UN, which cannot be allowed to be just abandoned.

At the UN Security Council (UNSC) in the remained period as Chairman, India must be vocal about its abhorrence of a Taliban-run Afghanistan that seeks to reverse the gains of democracy developing in the past two decades. A pathetic diluted statement that India drafted as UNSC president on August 16 did not even mention opposition to theso-called “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”.

India must thereafter take a leading role in the debate over who will be nominated to Afghanistan’s seat at the UN, and whether the Republic’s appointed current Ambassador will remain, or the seat declared “vacant”, or even “suspended” depending on the new regime in Afghanistan committing to international norms on human rights, women’s rights, minority rights and others.

As Chairman of the Taliban Sanctions Committee (or the 1988 Sanctions Committee), India must not act shy, but in fact use its muscle to ensure terrorists such as Sirajuddin Haqqani and other members of the Haqqani group responsible for brutal suicide bombings on Indian embassies and consulates, not be given any exemptions: on travel, recourse to funds, or arms.

Thus, Prime Minister Modi’s forthcoming speech at the UN General Assembly scheduled for September 25th will be an appropriate occasion to express India’s position on the civilised future of Afghanistan and thus challenge the rest of the international community to refuse legitimisation of the Taliban regime, unless the regime is willing to negotiate on all these issues.

In dealing with the Taliban regime, the Modi Government must determine the nature of its engagement with this new regime. The question of whether India will move from its fruitless back-channel talks with the Taliban and with Pakistan in the past few months, into something substantive remains to be seen.

In a world of hard geopolitical realities, it is also uniquely India's soft power, autonomy based on principles and a Hindu tradition selfless assistance to those in need, such examples as Parsis and Jews, particularly has been the unique voice of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. We must make that voice heard loud and clear on Afghanistan, loud and clear and now.

(The writer is a BJP MP and former Union Minister. The views expressed are personal.)

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

India should reach out to all friendly nations which share a boundary with Afghanistan

The guns are blazing a thousand kilometres west of Delhi, silencing voices of dissent and terrorizing civilians in what remains of a country called Afghanistan. Global leaders are maintaining an “active silence” on the gross violations to human life, partially as a guilt of past sins and more so to understand the new nature of governance in a country forever torn between conflicting interests and tribes for at least four decades. That is the tricky territory, the new Government in Afghanistan will have to maneuver while trying to integrate with the new global order, averse to terror activities. Taliban, not known for diplomatic skills or the art of negotiation, has to balance pressures within and outside its troubled borders.It may not be easy by any leap of faith. The outside for Afghanistan is defined by Pakistan which has been Taliban’s sole sponsorfor two decades. Pakistan is elated (as seen in public statements of senior leaders and its open support in multilateral bodies such as UNHRC) by the developments, as it fulfills a bunch of its strategic targets. First, it gets the sole proprietorship of being the key negotiator for Taliban as the latter aims for international legitimacy. Secondly, with the emergence of a hostile force in Afghanistan, India has nearly cut off its economic and diplomatic relationship with Afghanistan. Thirdly, Pakistan’s mentor and key friend in the region, China, gets access to a treasure trove of minerals and tradeable goods besides gaininga strategic infrastructural gold mine in the form of roads to central Asia and land ports. China and Pakistan arenot India’s allies and are sure to use Taliban-trained non-state actors with access to sophisticated weapons and surveillance devices (left by the US) to create violent disruptions in India. This brings us to the question about India which is calmly handling the situation but acknowledging the threat to its borders.

The current Government has briefed key opposition leaders on Afghanistan and the way ahead. Emerging from a fractured monsoon session of parliament which saw for the first time a coalitionof opposition parties unrelenting to let the parliamentary debates take place and asevere rift between ruling and opposition,the Government has clearly sent out a signal of peace on a crucial issue of national security. This has to be balanced and doggedly pursued withan international coalition of likeminded allies willing to participate in this treacherous terrain.  India has to reach out to all its friendly or neutral countries, which share a land boundary with Afghanistan. Iran has been balancing its approach towards Afghanistan by allowing export of petroleum products (even as the US and international agencies have halted any assistance to the country) while at the same time closing its boundaries to avoid a refugee problem. India has strategic relationship with Iran and the external affairs minister was recently invited for the swearing-in ceremony of the new President where the changing regional order (read Afghanistan) was high on agenda. The other countries which share land borders arethe three erstwhile Soviet-ruled central Asian countries with whom India has had a warm relationship in the past. India continues to send high quality medical professional and educators to Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. As of now these countries have closed their boundaries to Afghan refugees but the porous borders will not be able the halt march of war. India has to carefully play a balancing game in this region by engaging in deep conversations on the future of Afghanistan. This will go in hand with India’s strategic choice of aligning with the US on key geo-political considerations in the region.

(The writer is a policy analyst. The views expressed are personal.)

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

The Govt or laws aren’t weak and unimaginative to bring down corruption. As people, we are too strong and imaginative to remain corrupt by all means

Kautilya sat down to write ‘Artha Shastra’, one of the first books on economics in human history, some 2,300 years ago.  And he ended up writing a whole chapter on ‘corruption’.  He famously said, ‘just like it is impossible not to taste a drop of honey that you find at the edge of the tongue, it is impossible for a King’s officer not to eat up a bit of King’s revenue’.  

Essentially, it means that even as long ago as in 300 BC, we were rampantly corrupt and as a society we exploited whatever individual power we had.  Kautilya implied that for Indians, the very human nature it self poses corruption. Time and again it was proved in our history. Kingdoms grew or fell through some strategic corruption of individuals who switched sides at a critical time. Even the British India Company walked over this sub-continent and established the rule of Britain over us, because we could be corrupted easily, and it was so effortless to divide us and rule. 

As a society, we indulge in it as a casual act of convenience.  And then, we complain about it, make fuss and cry wolf.

Why is it that the Governments cannot absolutely wipe out corruption? In all these 2,500 years, we have had several types of Governments ruling over us - kingdoms, monarchies, dynasties, sultanates, foreign colonisations and democracies. There have been benevolent rulers, autocratic usurpers, people’s leaders, men of sword, religious oppressors… you name it.  But how come any form of government or system of rule could not bring down corruption through force, legislation, counseling, or any other means for thousands of years?  Havenot we punished people enough?  Well, the country has historically practiced capital punishment, dismemberment of limbs, jailing, public humiliation, seizing of property and all kinds of punishment for corruption over centuries and millennia. Yet, as a society, we are as corrupt as we have been for thousands of years.

This essentially means that it is not the Government or the Law which is weak and unimaginative in bringing down corruption. It is just that as people, we are too strong and imaginative to remain corrupt by all means. And morally, we do not attach shame or guilt in being corrupt. Corruption is our blood trait.

During these testing times, when a selfless and sincere approach was needed to fight the Covid-19 pandemic, this trait of corruption ruled the roost. A grocery shop owner fleeced customers citing short-supply. A pharmacist hoarded life-saving medicine. A basic equipment like pulse oximeter suddenly disappeared from stores and if available, was sold at a much higher price. Black marketing of oxygen cylinders wreaked havoc on families in dire need of oxygen. Even a taxi driver would charge hefty sums from passengers.

We have just shown that we could just exploit any opportunity for money or material. And by stooping to this low, we have also defeated all the good works of a large section of people during these difficult times. Individuals, organizations, even political parties, in their own capacities, have been providing free food, medicines, ambulances, oxygen and all possible support to the needy but they were easily eclipsed by the rampant corruption surrounding us.

In the Covid-era, we have seen that corruption has reached the zenith.  It is not exaggerating that during the times of the Pandemic, we have ‘corona'ted corruption and installed it on the throne.  Corruption thrives at the juncture of power. And power need not be political or administrative or of any high order.  And if the opportunity is of critical nature, rendering the other one helpless, distressed and weak in some manner, it is easier to exploit the situation. And CORONA has become a golden goose of benefit for the heartless, unscrupulous and ruthless.

People of all statures - from the rich and resourceful to the ones struggling to meet their ends - had to fight this corruption alongside fighting the deadly virus. It was widely reported that once you reach the hospitals, in the hope of some relief and cure, corruption widened its wings. In fact, finding a hospital bed for the patient proved to be a Herculean task and in many cases, the hospital beds were hoarded by unscrupulous agents in connivance with the hospitals. News reports of ambulance operators charging Rs 20,000 to Rs 40,000 for ferrying patients to short distances of a few kilometres describes this moral corruption in the most absolute terms. 

In our country, where private infrastructure accounts for nearly 62 per cent of all of India’s health infrastructure, it is easier for corruption to thrive at every level of the system. Medical staff were found refilling empty Remdesivir bottles with fake drugs and selling them to patients not only at a premium but also risking their lives, remorselessly. Patients and their families were cheated with fire extinguishers in the name of oxygen cylinders just when they needed oxygen to save the lives of their loved ones.

These instances are just the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The deep-rooted corruption in the health services goes as deep as kickbacks given to health workers to secure better services, theft of medical instruments and medicine from hospitals that are then sold at a premium outside. This ethical and moral bankruptcy have even driven them to the extent of recycling and selling bio-medical wastes like used face masks, PPE kits and gloves for the sake of a few pennies. Hospitals were also found charging exorbitant fees from Covid-19 patients.

And if one thought this faceoff with corruption would end here, a rude shock awaited them. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, who would have ever thought of corruption in the cremation ground? Families of the deceased were charged up to Rs 25,000 to Rs 30,000 for cremating the bodies which otherwise cost less than Rs 5,000 in normal days.

I began this article saying that corruption is a blood trait of people. There is very little that anyone can do to remove this evil from our midst if people act beyond the sanctity of morality.  A thing that was never effectively curtailed for centuries will only increase and occupy the centre stage of our lives when people patronize it, benefit from it and silently subscribe to it.

The present Government under the leadership of PM Narendra Modi has effectively shown how a system can be run without corruption. Having served for 20 years as head of Government - in Gujarat and then at the Centre - without even a charge of corruption, Modi has an impeccable, clean character to inspire our generation to adopt honesty as the way of life. Unfortunately, even the high degree of honesty and morality of our Prime Minister failed to influence our society and proved that corruption was indeed our blood trait. 

Governments can only help people's will to change. But if they donot want to change, there is no power that can pull us out of the intricate mess that we have created for ourselves. Let us pledge not to exploit humanity with our greed.

(The writer is Chairman, Khadi & Village Industries Commission. The views expressed are personal.)

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Karnataka is the first Indian State to launch the NEP but what about others?

Earlier this week, Karnataka became the first State in India to launch the National Education Policy (NEP). Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai managed to successfully achieve what his counterparts in other States have been struggling with for the last two years. Come October 1, schools and colleges in Karnataka would see a tectonic shift in their curriculum and the process of teaching. It is expected that the NEP would revolutionise the education sector. The Chief Minister expressed the hope that the NEP, which has been adapted to suit the convenience of students in the State by the National Committee for the Education Policy headed by Dr K Kasturirangan, former chief of Isro, would make every Kannadiga a knowledgeable person and liberate education from “silos”. He also announced the establishment of primary and secondary education councils in the State. Karnataka would have a career guidance and personality development programme at the secondary education level that would realise the goal of creating an equitable society. The councils will also help the teachers and parents to identify the areas of interest of their wards so that they would not end up as square pegs in round holes.

An important point in the NEP is the decision to impart education through one’s mother tongue up to Class V. While NEP’s implementation has been held up elsewhere due to resistance from the Opposition which alleges that it is a tool to saffronise education, Karnataka seems to have pulled off a consensus. Moreover, the State has no fringe elements opposing Hindi unlike in Tamil Nadu where the Dravidian politicians see red at the mere mention of Hindi. Students should be given an opportunity to learn Hindi, India’s official language, because they are capable of excelling in any languages and they should not be denied the chance to learn two or three languages besides the mother tongue. The Tamil Nadu politics has robbed the students of a chance to study in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, a concept school system launched when Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister. Tamil Nadu is the only State in India that does not have Navodaya Vidyalayas, offering public school-level education for free. The Dravidian honchos are wary of Hindi and hence such schools are missing from the State. Poor students are the losers because they are denied the “equal opportunity” as mentioned in the Constitution.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)