With a clean profile, Tirath Singh Rawat's fawning on PM Modi doesn't gel with the BJP's image
Politics, they say, is a dirty business. If that be correct, it is arguably not too far from the truth to claim that sycophancy is the oxygen and ego booster that most politicians live on. It’s their ticket to power and a surefire method for survival in the scheming, manipulative underbelly of politics. There have been any number of people in public life who have embraced, and even perfected, the art of servile flattery for self-promotion and self-interest. The one-leader outfits in particular, and all parties in general, can be accused of this trait. Hitherto not tainted much by this blemish, sycophancy has come of age in the “party with a difference”, too. Speaking at an event in Haridwar recently, Uttarakhand’s new Chief Minister Tirath Singh Rawat compared Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Lord Ram, saying that Modi has become so popular that the leaders of various countries now line up to get their pictures clicked with the Indian Prime Minister. He also equated Modi’s regime to the “good work done by Lord Ram for society” and, therefore, people started considering him god and a similar thing will happen with Modi, too. Last month, a video showed Rae Bareli’s circle officer Anjani Kumar Chaturvedi in uniform touching Shivpal Singh Yadav’s feet.
A video, showing 1996-batch IPS officer Rajeev Mishra in uniform touching Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s feet, had in August 2019 triggered a controversy. In May 2015, her Minister Rachpal Singh — a former IPS officer — stood calmly while a policeman tied his shoelaces at a public function. Similarly, Etah SSP Ajay Mohan in January 2013 touched the feet of Ramgopal Yadav, the brother of SP’s former chief Mulayam Singh Yadav. But perhaps no party has perfected the art of sycophancy as much as the Congress stalwarts. Zail Singh, grateful to his party’s leader for getting him into Rashtrapati Bhavan, famously said he would gladly “sweep the ground” that Indira Gandhi walked upon. And taking the top spot in the pantheon of flattery would be Dev Kant Barooah, who served as the Congress president during the Emergency. He is remembered even today for his adulation of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, which he encapsulated in his proclamation in 1974: “India is Indira. Indira is India”. Such leaders, who crawl when asked to bend, are a disgrace to society and the people they represent. There should be no place for such courtiers in a democracy; rather, their work should speak for them.
Our varsities must not function in silos and there is a pressing need to bring about systemic changes
These are public-funded “white elephants”, a fiefdom of those who have been able to secure permanent appointment either on the basis of their talent or “otherwise”, as it offers terms and conditions – handsome salary, job guarantee, HRA, TA, DA and other perks – which the highly competitive private sector can hardly match. Most of the Vice-Chancellors are political appointees who are subservient to the cause of their masters and their single-point agenda is to appoint those who are either “recommended” or belong to a particular ideology. Earlier, the Congress and the Left ruled the roost, particularly in Central varsities, but now the BJP and RSS are in the driving seat. Our universities are fraught with nepotism, favouritism, bribery, financial misappropriation and all forms of corruption. These are the focal points of an ideological war among the faculty members but out of focus for academics. Crippled with inherent corruption and bogged down by incompetency, our universities have failed to keep pace with their global counterparts and stand nowhere in terms of research, innovation and generation of ideas. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has emphasised on reforming universities so that they can play a leading role in India’s development in terms of ideas, innovations, quality research and startups. These goals cannot be achieved unless those in the university system give up their complacency. We need to understand that our universities have a wider role to play than just being the mega centre of awarding degrees and handing out diplomas.
All hell broke loose when Nita Ambani, the Reliance Foundation chairperson and non-executive director of Reliance Industries, was made a visiting professor in the social science faculty of the Banaras Hindu University. A section of teachers and intellectuals are opposing it tooth and nail on social media and a few even argue that it is part of the Modi Government’s “hidden agenda to privatise public universities”. Those who join an Indian university as PhD research scholars know that more than their academic work, their servility counts. No surprise, completing their thesis and submitting research often takes longer than usual and they are considered “jhola dhone waale” (who carry the bag of professors). Armed with the tricks to deceive plagiarism tools and with leisure and pleasure of their guides, they somehow secure a PhD. Ironically, many of these PhD holders end up as teachers in colleges. Now, those who have paralysed the university system for years are alleging that it’s being privatised. Obviously, they are more concerned about protecting their vested interests rather than about the universities landing in private hands. However, it’s for universal good to abandon such unfounded apprehensions and move towards making our universities progressive. Our students can gain a lot from the experience of an industry giant or, for that matter, from bureaucrats, doctors, engineers, scientists, Army officers, young entrepreneurs and others who have excelled in their respective fields. Our universities cannot remain functioning in silos and there is a need to bring about systemic changes. The sooner it starts, the better it would be.
India must go for far-sighted policy initiatives and a collaborative response with multilateral institutions to transit to clean energy
At the Quad summit last week, as also at the last G20 summit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reiterated India’s commitment to combat climate change, as we move towards the target of “net-zero emissions by 2050”. This calls for far-sighted policy initiatives and a collaborative response with multilateral institutions to achieve a transition to clean energy.
The sunrise sectors that emerged as post-pandemic growth catalysts have been healthcare, ed-tech, digitisation, fin-tech and e-commerce. While there is a greater urgency to transition to smart infrastructure and green technologies, this space is yet to see traction, as renewable energy, electric vehicles (EVs), sustainable infrastructure, smart urbanisation and smart ruralisation, water harvesting, recycling of post-usage wastage and so on, are still in nascent stages of adoption by corporates and consumers.
Currently, there is a resistance to invest in the vast array of utilities and products that come under the sustainability sector, like solar and wind energy, or EVs, as most products have shorter technology life cycles. Also, these products need a proven track record of usage and need to achieve economies of scale to lower costs before consumers actually buy into them.
Just to illustrate this point, electric mobility is a sunrise sector in the sustainability field, with the potential to create 15 million jobs globally. Considering that India has high dependency on oil imports and rising levels of pollution remain a challenge, autonomous vehicles and EVs are a solution to both the problems. Yet, EVs account for less than one per cent of the total vehicles sold in India. Similarly, though solar power prices have declined globally and India produces the cheapest solar power as project costs have declined, the transition to solar energy is just two per cent of the global energy generated.
To accelerate the transition towards deep-decarbonisation and facilitate adoption, the Government needs to further incentivise the supply side through productivity-linked schemes as they have done for batteries, as also spur consumer demand through access to cheaper finance.
India’s weightage is today seven per cent of the world’s GDP, based on purchasing power parity. As we begin the road to recovery and target to reflate to healthy pre-crisis growth averages of six-eight per cent, increased economic activity will mean higher mobility levels and higher manufacturing intensity, therefore, higher emissions.
Even though India maintains that we are on target to achieve the goal of producing 450 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2030, we require $600 billion of funding to leapfrog to that goal. Apart from multilateral funding for mega renewable projects and for FDI for electric vehicles, there is need for easier financing through development finance institutions for long gestation projects. While the Government supports newer financial instruments like green bonds to raise capital at competitive rates to finance climate-friendly projects, public sector banks need to extend lower interest rates to companies at the forefront of sustainable ESG investing.
So, what kind of financial allocations and prospects are we looking at?
Being the most populous country with a high-living density, being a large manufacturing hub and having a large consuming population, our average carbon footprint is estimated at 0.19 tonne per capita among the poor, and 1.32 tonne among the rich. As the target is to cut emission intensity of the GDP by 33-35 per cent by 2030, this in itself holds great business potential.
Second, there is heightened awareness by corporates to provision for ESG investing into their business planning. So, with 24 of the largest conglomerates in India (that contribute to emitting 530 million tonnes of CO2 annually) having signed a declaration on climate change, this is an important beginning, as the private sector plays a vital role in bringing technical expertise and enhanced spending on research and development.
According to the World Economic Forum estimates, a “nature-positive economy” could globally deliver $10 trillion of annual business and create 395 million jobs by 2030. It is projected that for every $1 spent to advance the global energy transition, it offers returns of around $3-8 as renewable and clean energy infrastructure construction generates twice as many jobs per $1 million spent as compared to fossil fuel projects.
The vast potential for the transition to green technology is embedded in Budget 2021 itself, as also the 15th Finance Commission report pushing for priority outlays with Rs 7 lakh crore allocated for urbanisation over the next five years; Rs 5 lakh crore allocated for water, sanitation and waste management; Rs 15,000 crore for clean air; and Rs 2.87 lakh crore for the Jal Jeevan Mission.
With the Government having set an aspirational target of becoming a $10 trillion economy by 2030, much of India’s growth will unfold in the next decade. This makes integrating the principles of green recovery a win-win business proposition that can address the concerns of jobs, growth and sustainability. This is an opportunity that must be tapped into by forging stronger public-private partnerships with the Centre and State Governments, as also by accessing global expertise for technology inputs if we are to make the green transition in conformity with the Paris Agreement.
(The writer is an author, columnist and Chairperson, NCFIL, at NITI Aayog. The views expressed are personal).
After ‘Freedom House', Rahul cites Swedish report to claim India ‘no longer a democracy'
It is a matter of serious concern, shame rather, when a few citizens of a country don’t fight shy of targeting even their ‘motherland’ for settling petty scores with a competitor in the pursuit of upmanship. What’s worse, to achieve this end, they rely on and quote reports released by foreign establishments debasing the State without realising that the nation can easily see through their game plan: After all, we all live in the world’s oldest democracy and experience it every day! Why do we need foreign institutes to tell us the state of democracy in our very own country? However, this simple logic doesn’t cut with frustrated politicos like Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury who would seemingly go to any length in their attempts to embarrass the country’s incumbent leadership. Days after quoting a report by ‘Freedom House’ — a US-based organisation that conducts research and advocacy on democracy — that downgraded India’s status as a “free society” to “partly free”, Rahul has now said India is no longer a democratic country. The research institute had said India was descending into “authoritarianism”; a claim sharply rebutted by the Centre point by point.
This time round, he was citing a report by Sweden’s V-Dem Institute that has downgraded India from the “world’s largest democracy” to “electoral autocracy”. Earlier in February, AAP MP Sushil Kumar Gupta had tried to raise the matter of the Sweden-based institute’s report but Rajya Sabha Chairman Venkaiah Naidu ticked him off, curtly asking Gupta what the concern of Sweden’s institute was in Indian democracy. But the simple point is this: Rather than citing foreign reports for gaining political mileage while simultaneously running down the democratic institutions of his own country, Rahul would be better advised to approach the judiciary if he has any just complaint or apprehension about any type of threat to our democracy. Better still, since he is a Member of Parliament and the erstwhile president of the country’s oldest political party, he had better raise the matter in the august House where he has several means available: the Question Hour, notice for discussion, special mention, calling attention notice et al. This will help convey his apprehensions across the length and breadth of the country and force the Government to responsibly respond to his critique.
The UP Government's road safety measure to remove religious structures from public land must be hailed
In a move that will free up public land, decongest roads, pavements and highways and make walking and driving in Uttar Pradesh (UP) safer and easier, the Yogi Adityanath Government has directed that any encroachment, structure or construction of religious nature on public roads, streets, pavements and highways after January 1, 2011, should be removed immediately. The structures built earlier would be given six months for a planned removal. These instructions have been issued by the UP Government in compliance with the 2016 order of the Allahabad High Court (HC) and all senior administrative and police officials at the district level have been told to shift such encroachments to land given by the followers of that religion or private land proposed by the persons responsible for the religious structure’s management. The order also stated that in case of any disobedience, the officials concerned would be held responsible and in contempt of the HC’s orders. This move was a long time coming because anyone who has driven on Indian roads must have come across structures that jut out into an otherwise perfect road and force people to go around them.
Not only do these structures pose a big risk to drivers, especially at night as most of our roads are not well lit, particularly the highways, they cause traffic jams and bottlenecks, too. Though successive Governments have constructed hundreds of kilometres of roads and highways in UP and other States, they have failed to remove such encroachments, no matter how many accidents they cause or how many people are inconvenienced. This is owing to the fact that religion is a sensitive and emotive issue in India and comes above everything else. Hence, removing a religious structure from the side of a road or pavement is next to impossible without having a communal flare-up, as logical thinking and reasoning tend to take a back seat where our religious sentiments are concerned. Now, thanks to the HC’s order, many such constructions in UP and NOIDA, in particular, will be removed, making life easier. However, the Government would do well to take the religious leaders of all communities into confidence and ensure that the encroachments are removed peacefully without hurting any sentiments. Plus, it will have to ensure that all religions are treated equally and there is no room for partisan behaviour that creates bitterness and communal disharmony.
Does the Quad need more robust tactics to contain China's growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region?
The idea of a “free and open Indo-Pacific” was at its core, apart from the anti-COVID vaccine and climate change. But what apparently injected lifeblood into an alliance that has largely remained passive till now is Washington’s belligerence towards Beijing after Joe Biden took over as the US President. Certainly, India supplying its indigenous COVID vaccines to nations across the world has strengthened its position which it seems to cautiously tap to counter its hostile northern neighbour. The US knows well that it’s almost impossible to restrain the increasing Chinese influence without India’s help. New Delhi, too, knows its importance and will do whatever it takes to constrict the fast-expanding economic and military interests of Beijing in the region. Both Australia and Japan, who are coerced by China, particularly in the maritime space, understand the strategic importance of bolstering ties with both India and the US. However, the Quad meeting had only a veiled reference to China which has all along opposed the grouping, claiming that it will lead to militarisation in the region. But the moot question is whether such docile attempts are enough to counter China? Will it work as a real deterrent to Beijing? What will be its repercussions? China will try to counter such efforts diplomatically and on other fronts. Being one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Beijing has the capacity to win favours and dent pliant commitments of any group against its interests.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that the Quad will remain an “important pillar of stability in the region” while Biden mentioned that the group is committed to ensuring that the region is governed by international law and is free from coercion. India and the US seem to have an unequivocal stance against Beijing but it is only in the best interest of the former to tread cautiously as there are no permanent friends or foes in the global order and world diplomacy is a game of opportunism that is driven more by self-interests. Biden hinted to it in his first diplomatic address when he pledged to counter China’s economic abuses and human rights violations but, on the other hand, asserted that he is ready to work with Beijing if it is in the US’ interest. What message does it entail? India must also play its game cleverly, else it would end up serving the interest of the superpower in the Indo-Pacific region at the cost of its own gains. Remember, the US always loves to play the role of a judge who has to never pass a judgment. In case it does, it is used to pronouncing verdicts that suit its ends. It is in the best interest of India to get future-ready for countering China as it might wage a war on several fronts, unlike traditional warfare: Biological weapons, hacking internet services and remote-controlling it and increasing dominance in outer space. Are we prepared for it? As of now, the answers are not so easily forthcoming.
However odd these incidents may appear to traditional people, a free society should allow people to do what they prefer
Same-sex marriage is novel and different from the traditional sacramental or contractual coming together of a man and a woman. It would be a union legitimised by religion or law between two persons. It enables the couple to bear children who are, therefore, legitimate and not otherwise. Giving birth or procreation is a duty for the perpetuation of the human race. A primary function of marriage is legitimate procreation.
There are men and women who live together without being married, especially in Europe, but hesitate to produce children. There are others who do not hesitate. In Gujarat’s Vadodara city, nearly 30 years ago, a leading lawyer introduced a novelty called “maîtri karaar” (friendship contract). It laid down in a legal document all the necessary conditions about the future of the man’s property and assets as well as other commitments. From an orthodox family, he had been married when very young. Subsequently, he was educated as a lawyer. His wife remained the woman she was expected to be.
The mental or intellectual gulf between the two grew wider. Their two children remained with the wife but he maintained them all, though he lived separately with a younger lady whom he had befriended. To reassure herself of future security, she requested for a contract and the lawyer acceded. Following their example, several others in Gujarat adopted this contract method. Seldom did the parties to the contract procreate; in that they did not fulfill their racial duty to nature. I have come across stranger incidents.
Two young ladies, one very distantly related to me and the other of Chinese origin, resided in Canada at the time. They became such close friends that they got married. In due course, the Indian met an Englishman, a bachelor, who had a great desire to have children. With the consent of the Chinese spouse, the Indian agreed and had two children. A few years later, the Chinese also met someone with whom there grew a desire to have children. Last heard, the Sino-American combination had one child. The same-sex couple and their children stay together whereas the fathers visit them according to mutual convenience.
However odd these incidents may appear to traditional people, a free society should allow people to do what they prefer. But that does not mean that the current laws should have to accommodate new oddities. For such people, the legislatures should make separate laws so that the pioneers concerned do not feel insecure or outside the pale of society. Say, merely for illustrating my contention, let same-sex coming together be under a law called a ‘unity contract’ or anything else but not marriage.
Experts may have several explanations for what in the old days would have been called perversities, but are now sympathised with. In my own lay observation, homosexuality develops normally due to the denial of access or exposure to the other gender. Boarding schools occasionally report such cases and, lately, irregularities have come to the surface in religious institutions, too. Again, going by my experience of being an only child, I suffered from extreme shyness in mixing up with girls. Here, my parents should have noted this and played a part in bringing me out of my reserve. All they needed to have done is to clearly tell me that if I wanted to talk to a girl, I had to first say hello to her. I somehow had the notion that if I took the initiative, the girl might misunderstand and feel that I was taking liberties, which was so wrong! Nevertheless, I remained safe from any diversion.
Another unusual experience I have witnessed is of my aunt. About the time I was born, she fell in love with an older doctor. He was married in his village before completing his studies. In due course, he and his wife had three healthy children. The mental or intellectual chasm between them had grown considerably. Basically, the doctor’s problem was similar to that of the Vadodara lawyer. He, therefore, responded to my aunt, they became friends and remained so for years. When I was about eight years old, they came to see my grandfather for permission to marry. If he did not object, they would take a train to Goa and get married there. The reason was that the Bombay Provincial Law had prohibited bigamy by 1945 whereas the Goan rules permitted it.
They went to Goa, got married and, remarkably, all lived together until death did them part: That is the two wives, six children and the doctor husband who happily survived until he was 83. As I grew up, I awoke to a contradiction in the Bombay Provincial Law. My aunt and uncle had to go to Goa to escape the ban on bigamy but thousands others are in law exempted from it and permitted the privilege of polygamy. This discrimination is now prevalent across India. Either polygamy should be allowed for all under a distinct, separate law or, preferably, it should be prohibited for all citizens of the country. But different privileges to different people under the law are discriminatory and wrong.
(The writer is a well-known columnist and an author. The views expressed are personal.)
There are many stakeholders in the Palestine statehood stalemate. Despite decades of struggle, the Palestinian movement for self-determination is heading nowhere.A two-State solution is the most ideal way to end the crisis once for all
The Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) has ordered an investigation into the alleged war crimes in the Palestinian territories which were captured by Israel in the historic Six Day War of 1967, wherein the country has already started settlement construction.
The ICC investigation will look into “crimes that are alleged to have been committed” since June 13, 2014 — the Palestinians chose June 2014 as the start of the investigation to coincide with the run-up to Israel’s devastating Gaza war that summer.
Way back in 2015, the ICC began a preliminary investigation into the 2014 Gaza conflict. In the month of June that year, the Palestinian Authority (PA) submitted evidence of massive war crimes by the Israeli military. However, a report released by the UN highlighted that there was evidence of war crimes by both the Israeli military and the Hamas, the Palestinian militant outfit. According to UN estimates, over 2,200 Palestinians, including nearly 1,500 civilians, were killed by Israeli fire while at least 67 soldiers and six civilians were killed on the Israeli side.
However, Israel has argued that it waged a war of self-defense against nonstop rocket fire against its cities. Calling the ICC decision to begin war crimes probe “anti-Semitism and hypocrisy”, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said, “The state of Israel is under attack… I promise you we will fight for the truth until we annul this scandalous decision.”
Netanyahu has accused the ICC of “turning a blind eye to Iran, Syria and the other dictatorships that are committing real war crimes.”
The decision to launch the ICC probe was taken by its outgoing Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, a former Gambian Judge. In February this year, Bensouda claimed that the ICC had jurisdiction over the case. Her preliminary probe in 2019 has brought forth the fact that there is enough evidence to open a war crimes case in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip. In one of her statements, she said that the investigation will look into crimes within the jurisdiction of the court. She has ensured the international community that the investigation will be conducted “independently, impartially and objectively, without fear or favour”.
The massive task of this investigation will be carried out by the ICC’s new Chief Prosecutor, leading British lawyer Karim Khan, who will replace Bensouda in June this year. He currently heads a UN investigation into war crimes committed by the Islamic State in Iraq.
The ICC probe aims to focus on two key areas around which Israeli Government’s policies are involved: its continued military offensives against the Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip rocked by a devastating war in 2014 and its expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem and West Bank.
These actions of Tel Aviv have been broadly highlighted by the PA in its report filed in the ICC since its joining the Court.
Though Palestine is not an independent nation, it was granted non-member status in the coveted UN General Assembly in 2012. And this helped Palestine to claim its membership in other crucial global institutions such as the ICC. Ever since, Palestine has been trying to convince the international community about its allegation of war crimes by Israel.
Now interesting part of the probe announced by the ICC is that Israel is not a member of the court. Also, Israeli Government outlines the fact that since Palestine is not an independent state, the ICC does not have any jurisdiction over it.
However, the PA is extremely enthused with the launch of the ICC probe.
Nevertheless many Palestine sympathisers are getting worked up as the ICC has been painfully slow despite the evidence of war crimes was mentioned in the preliminary report by Bensouda.
The international court proceedings involving such cases might take a longer course of action in comparison to domestic trials.
Known popularly as ‘KingBibi’, Netanyahu is adept in handing the ICC probe issue. His followers call him, “The Magician”, “The Winner”, and “Melekh Yisrael” (i.e. King of Israel). Known for his anti-solutionism, he tries to popularise the theory that Israel is surrounded by wolves in sheep’s clothing and wolves in wolves clothing. It seems Netanyahu favours status quo on the Palestine issue.
An equally reluctant Fatah and the Palestinian Authority need to come up with a realistic solution. The status quo has supported the Fatah leadership as it helped it to remain in power. Even without creating a Palestinian state, the security cooperation with Israel may safeguard the PA from being overthrown by the Hamas.
In the past, when concerns were raised over war crimes in Israeli occupied areas, attempts were made to detract from the seriousness of the court’s findings. Questions were raised by Israel on the issue of statehood of Palestine, the legitimacy of the court jurisdiction and their very political appropriateness.
The then Trump Administration solidly backed the Israeli Government on this issue. Washington’s unwavering support to Tel Aviv reflected in its direct attack on the ICC and its personnel as it rejected the ICC’s authority over its citizens and territory, suspended visas to ICC personnel and their families, and condemned the Palestine investigation and any other action that seeks to target Israel unfairly.
Then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo constantly referred to the ICC as an embarrassing, political, renegade, unlawful, and a vehicle for political vendettas, masquerading as a legal body. Then President Trump issued an executive order that imposed sanctions over ICC prosecutor and investigators.
Many, particularly the left liberals across the world thought that with Joe Biden coming to power, Washington will reverse the previous course of action. And eventually a new America will be back.
However, the Biden Administration that has stressed on human rights and a multilateral approach to foreign policy has stood behind Israel, as American Presidents do.
Antony Blinken, his Secretary of State, sharply reacted to the ICC probe and said that the US firmly opposes and is deeply disappointed at the court’s decision to open a war crimes investigation in the occupied Palestinian territories. He further stated that the ICC had no jurisdiction over this matter. Israel is not a party to the ICC and has not consented to the court’s jurisdiction and we have serious concerns about the ICC’s attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel.
US State Department spokesman Ned Price said, “We firmly oppose and are disappointed by the ICC prosecutor’s announcement of an investigation into the Palestinian situation.”
“We will continue to uphold our strong commitment to Israel and its security including by opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly,” Price told reporters in Washington.
This will surely encourage Netanyahu to ramp up campaign against the ICC decision.
To put an end to all the controversies, the duty of incoming prosecutor Khan is to consider the probe as purely a legal one.
After decades of struggle, the Palestinian people and their movement for self-determination are heading nowhere. The right to self-determination of the Palestinians and their dream of an independent State have so far remained a lofty goal.
Frustrated, annoyed and deprived of a credible international attention, the Palestinians are forced to set the stage for basic building blocks for their survival. All what they need is the very basic rights guaranteed by the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, some 72 years ago. And it’s time for Israel to recognise and help establishing an independent Palestinian State.
Biden hiding under semi-Trumpism or any other US President, with a preset framework, will not be able to solve the long conflict between Palestine and Israel. A two-State solution is the most ideal way to end the hostilities between the two parties.
(The writer is an expert on international affairs)
Biden defends Asian-Americans targeted by the Right-wingers since the start of the pandemic
Every once in a while in the history of mankind comes a leader who does irreparable damage to a country’s social fabric; former US President Donald Trump falls in that category. The incumbent, Joe Biden, has been left to undo the damage that Trump’s divisive politics did to American society. In his forthright, no-nonsense manner, Biden has stepped right up to the plate to set matters right. In his first primetime address, giving details of the progress made in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, Biden didn’t mince words in condemning “vicious hate crimes” committed against Asian-Americans since the start of the outbreak. Terming such acts “un-American”, he called for an immediate halt to these. The remarks come in the backdrop of China being accused globally of unleashing the virus upon the world, with Trump often referring to it as “the Chinese virus”. This unleashed a spate of attacks on Asian-Americans who were harassed and blamed for the outbreak. If a research conducted by the California State University is to be believed, anti-Asian hate crimes more than doubled from 49 to 122 in 2020 across 16 major US cities even as overall hate crimes fell. According to another study by the Stop AAPI Hate advocacy group, more than 2,800 incidents of racism and discrimination against Asian-Americans were reported online across the country between March-December 2020. Though Biden’s intentions are good, it remains to be seen whether he can heal the wounds inflicted by Trump’s divisive narrative, which targeted not only Asian-Americans but set the Blacks and Whites against each other, too. His reign saw protracted race riots and ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests across America.
Though Right-wing violence is a result of the Whites’ anxiety about Barack Obama’s presidency, it accelerated in the Trump era. This is because certain statements by Trump were perceived by White supremacists as the former President’s tacit support for their cause. For instance, after the violence in Charlottesville, Trump asserted that “both sides” were equally to blame and that there were “some very fine people” among the far-Right demonstrators. Ironically, many of those “very fine people” were wearing ‘Make America Great Again’ caps while chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans. Also, in the run-up to the November 6 mid-term polls, Trump rallied crowds with inflammatory rhetoric about Muslims and immigrants. So, with a country split nearly down the middle, Biden faces an uphill task of uniting hearts. In fact, even US citizens are doubtful if he can get the job done. While a CNN survey shows that 67 per cent Americans are confident of Biden’s ability to guide the US out of the pandemic and a majority of the people surveyed by Pew researchers said they trusted the new President to make sound decisions on foreign policy and economy, there is less faith (52 per cent Doubting Thomases) in his ability to unite the country. Whether their fears are misplaced or not, only time will tell.
Turkey's decision to lend disproportionate support to Pakistan is part realpolitik, part desperation as it wants to get closer to China
The Turkish imprint on the subcontinental psyche has been complex and divisive since the arrival of Taimurlane, Mahmud of Ghazni and, later, Muhammad of Ghori. Popular perception on either side of the Line of Control (LoC) dividing the modern-day Indo-Pak realm varies, shaped by politics and the insistence of “two-nation” necessities from the Pakistani standpoint, which conveniently overlooks the historical pillage by the invaders. That wounded legacy and memories of bigotry and plunder at places like the Somnath Temple auto-instinctively became the default trigger for deification of these Turkish invaders in modern Pakistan.
Provocatively, the Pakistani military has named its missiles after these ruthless invaders i.e. Ghauri (medium-range ballistic missile), Ghaznavi (short-range ballistic missile) and so on. One of the 16 companies of the Pakistan Military Academy is called Ghaznavi, and the infamous and rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist, AQ Khan, personally built a mausoleum for Mohammad Ghori! Later, Pakistani dictators like Ayub Khan and Pervez Musharaf were particularly inspired by the Kemalist model and postured themselves on Turkish nationalist Kemal Ataturk. That historically the Turkish invaders ravaged the conjoined swathes of subcontinental land, that Mahatma Gandhi supported the Khilafat movement or that Kemal Ataturk was principally against religion in governance (hence antithetical to the two-nation idea) has been studiously ignored. In both the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak wars, Turkey was an odd supporter of Pakistan, even though there was no apparent dissonance with India.
Today, both Pakistan and Turkey are in the throes of political and societal revisionism, where they make even more common cause with each other. Both the Cold War US allies find themselves at odds in a recalibrated order that broadly splits the world into “democracies” and various shades of expansionist “autocracies” such as China, North Korea and Turkey. Pakistan, too, has failed to extricate itself from the Cold War sensibilities of nursing foreign insurgents on its soil and, therefore, the elements of its establishment (military, politicos and clergy) harbour stakes in the terror industry that militates against the interests of one-time allies, like the US. Similarly, Turkey under religio-conservative Recep Erdogan senses an opportunity to seize leadership within the Ummah by challenging the control of Saudi-led sheikhdoms, who have relatively nuanced their outlook by “opening up” and having warm relations with countries like India and Israel, to the discomfort of Pakistan.
The reciprocal and asymmetrical support plays out with Islamabad aligning itself to Ankara’s position in the Nagorno-Karabakh war, just as Ankara emerges as the only other (besides China) supporter of Islamabad on Kashmir. Washington DC faces a difficult challenge to control and balance conflicting interest with Pakistan, which it needs irreplaceably for securing American interests in Afghanistan and, with Turkey, where it has the strategic Incirlik Air Base that houses nuclear warheads. This leads to a constant tussle of pull and push which brings the Pakistani-Turkish relationship even closer.
Recently, the US put a spoke in the burgeoning military trade between Turkey and Pakistan when it blocked Turkey from supplying 30 Turkish ATAK T-129 attack helicopters (based on the US Agusta A129 Mangusta platform, with US-made engines) to Pakistan. Interestingly, the US had recently supplied India with 22 Apache attack helicopters. Importantly, this blockade was triggered by the Trump Administration and has now been reiterated by the Biden Administration — leaving Pakistan with no choice but to look at China for its Z-10 attack helicopters. This move will accelerate the looping of the triad entailing Turkey, Pakistan and China, wherein the Turkish jointsmanship with Pakistan in developing the Siper long-range missiles and the TF-X fighter jets could get access to Chinese technology.
Turkey has already signed a manufacture-and-technology-transfer contract with Pakistan for four Turkish-built MILGEM corvettes, whereas the air forces collaborate with the project of modernising Pakistan’s F-16 fleet as also Pakistan sparing its pilots to fly Turkish F-16s (following a Turkish purge of its fighter pilots suspected to be behind a botched coup attempt) to fly “mercenary missions”. For Turkey to lend disproportionate support to Pakistanis is part realpolitik, part desperation — as the two nations have the most powerful militaries in the Islamic world and the alliance facilitates the “China opportunity” for Turkey. In return, Turkey saves Pakistan from near-pariah status and parrots the tired “Kashmir” line that has lost its resonance in most countries within the Ummah.
The dangers of acceding to the basic instincts of both Turkey and Pakistan have started outweighing the benefits of tactically “overlooking” their repeated misdemeanours. Irrespective of the partisan administration in Washington, the US actions and reactions are following a set pattern, and Delhi is stitching its own alliances to counter the unholy nexus among the triad of Turkey, China and Pakistan.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. The views expressed are personal.)
Canada expresses gratitude for COVID vaccine but Delhi HC raps the Govt on the knuckles
India, following the Puranic principle of ‘Vasudhaiv kutumbakam’ (The world is one family), has been providing anti-COVID vaccines by way of grant assistance and commercial supplies to several countries under the “Vaccine Maitri” initiative along with keeping the inoculation of Indians on priority. The latest such beneficiary is Canada — on March 4, India dispatched 5,00,000 doses of Covishield there — and whose citizens have now expressed thankfulness and gratitude by mounting billboards in Canada’s Greater Toronto area with the pictures of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The accompanying note reads: “Thank you India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi for providing COVID vaccine to Canada. Long live India-Canada friendship.” Over the past few months, India’s vaccine diplomacy has been earning it many friends. That India’s gesture is genuine, heartfelt and aimed at protecting as many peoples as possible may be gauged from the fact that even though the relations between India and Pakistan remain far from hunky-dory, it is set to receive 45 million ‘Made in India’ doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. Besides Pakistan, India — known as the “pharmacy of the world” for producing 60 per cent of the vaccines globally — has already sent anti-COVID dose consignments as gifts to neighbours such as Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, Bhutan, the Maldives, Mauritius, Seychelles, Sri Lanka and on commercial basis to several other countries. The country has provided more than 361.94 lakh doses of anti-COVID vaccines to countries, of which 67.5 lakh doses have been supplied as grant assistance and 294.44 lakh on commercial basis.
However, it seems that not everybody is a big fan of the Government’s ongoing efforts to tame the virus, which is still mutating into more dangerous strains. The Delhi High Court, rather bizarrely it would seem, has told the Centre to “earn goodwill in the country first and then earn it outside” after observing that the Government is supplying the COVID-19 vaccine to even those countries which are on “not-so-friendly” terms with India. On March 4, the same Bench had made another observation: “We are not utilising it (here) fully. At the same time, we are donating or selling it to foreign countries. There has to be a sense of urgency.” However, it may be argued that since the virus doesn’t recognise or honour geographical boundaries or State borders, it is not unthinkable for it to cross over into Indian territory from the porous borders we share with certain countries even if we had the entire Indian citizenry inoculated against the virus. The situation in these turbulent times demands that all the countries and peoples stand together with the objective of saving humankind and defeating the accursed virus. The second phase of the world’s largest vaccination drive is already underway, so it isn’t as if the Government is twiddling its thumbs or not doing enough for the citizens. If the vaccine diplomacy helps our nation notch up a few friends more, especially among the neighbouring countries, there seems nothing wrong with it.
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month