Political Diary

New Delhi, 8 July 2025

Political Hoolaginism

MAIN NETA HOON, TUM KAUN?

By Poonam I Kaushish 

The more things change the more they remain the same. Daily we are treated to some antics, inane tantrums, silly shenanigans by our leaders. Of which ‘follow-no-rules’ is a fundamental part, instead they rule by law and are the law. No IDs’, no frisking and long queues, gaddis filled with gun-toting bodyguards jumping red lights to exhibit their ‘power’ might. God forbid, if anyone questions their misdemeanor, be prepared for open fury, “Main neta hoon, tum kaun?” 

Welcome to the world of arrogance of power or should one say political hoolaginism. Last week we were treated to two high jinxes by our leaders in two States. In Odisha Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation’s additional commissioner was dragged out of his chamber and assaulted by a group of miscreants who asked the officer to apologise to BJP leader Pradhan, resulting in Odisha Administrative Service and Odisha Revenue Service officers going on mass leave. Thankfully, it ended well with Pradhan and Co arrested.

If this was appalling, next day saw a repeat in Himachal where two National Highway Authority officials accused Rural Development Minister Anirudh Singh of assaulting them even as Singh denied allegations asserting an FIR against him was to divert attention from NHA’s negligence resulting in collapse of a five-storey building in Shimla. Earlier a train passenger was beaten for refusing to swap his seat with a neta in Madhya Pradesh.

It hardly matters that Himachal has Congress and Odisha and Madhya Pradesh BJP Governments. Similar incidents across the country over the years underscore an environment, wherein our power-drunk netas times out of number behave like Bahubalis with an overblown sense of entitlement and impunity nurtured by political patronage, disrespect for aam aadmi, rules of the game and belief that the law can be bent at will. Whereby, they and their henchmen are neither afraid of penalties or imprisonment with the State maintaining a deafening silence.

Alas, these latest high jinx of our ‘don’t-you-know-I-am-a-Neta’ underscores the vestige of 19th century India, colonial mindset and feudal intent still lingers whereby our neo-Maharajas MPs and MLAs are afflicted by two diseases: Acute Orwellian disorders of “I am more equal than you” and “always asking for more” with in-your-face boorishness sans accountability being their trademark. Immortalised by Mumbai mafia don-turned MLA Arun Gawli: “Ab mere pas bullet-proof jacket hai!.” 

Remember Shiv Sena MP who assaulted an Air India manager because he was denied a Business Class seat on an economy Pune-Delhi flight. “I hit him 25 times with my sandals, tore his clothes, broke his specs….I have no regrets…I have many criminal cases against me….I am an MP and will not tolerate any insult.”  Or BJP’s Indore MLA assaulting a municipal corporation officer with a cricket bat for going against his diktat and carrying out demolition of an ‘unsafe’ building. 

And Maharashtra’s Congress MLA assaulting an engineer, parading him and tying him to a pillar pouring buckets of dirt and mud on him. Questioned, said he, “I was merely acting on public complaints against inaction by authorities and to ensure it does not happen again”. Sic. 

Worse, instead of feeling remorse, our netas strut and preen like peacocks. Accentuating an inherent mindset of Hum Khaas Hain, which translates to living life king-size and nauseatingly flaunting it. Showcasing their power via elaborate power trappings: retinue of chamchas who applaud even the inane and ludicrous.

Undeniably, we seem to live in an India where only ‘powerful’ matter, living life in the slim strip called ‘official’ in a race for privilege. Wherein there is a wide chasm between aam aadmi and our khaas aadmis. Alongside, the high octane decibels of Saada Haq whereby, just about everybody, who’s anybody abuses power and public resources topped by being protected all at our expense. 

Big deal if this leaves a bitter taste in people’s mouth, increasing frustration, disconnect and contempt for rulers which results in defiance by people at large. Raising a moot point: Do our leaders actually deserve this extra importance? Aren’t symbols of authority contrary to the basic feature of republicanism enshrined in our Constitution? 

Can our poor country afford braggarts as legislators? Haven’t we had enough? Whatever happened to democracy by the people, of the people, for the people? Considering, most rulers barely discharge their responsibilities honestly and honourably. Do our leaders know the reality of Asli Bharat which they ad nauseum vow to protect? Where over 500 million live below poverty? Succinctly, they don’t give a damn. 

After all, its’ open secret that compromised elements in our criminal justice system often yield to the powerful and even in the face of popular outrage no long-term action is taken against the perpetrators. Highlighting a disturbing winner-takes-all attitude stems from the belief that being in power translates to being above law.

Thus, in a political culture that makes fear and favour its currency, this means the ruler-subject model which should have no place in a democracy becomes routinised. This is unacceptable. Assaulting bureaucrats or citizens must be met with exemplary punishment as such crimes undermine public faith in the rule of law and act as steeping stones to further criminalization of politics.

Time for law enforcement machinery to shed its perception of preferential treatment to our political Bahubalis and enforce law in a transparent manner. Parties too must signal zero tolerance policy towards roguery, no matter how big a vote-catcher the accused might be. By making cynical myopic choices Parties are undermining rule of law as babus are not durbaris in a raja’s court.

Plainly, the don’t-you-know-who-I-am’ term is outdated in a democracy.  It is ironic that those elected to serve people deny the very people they serve access to themselves. They need to dispense with the jo hukam sarkar culture and dismantle their privileged fortresses if we have to survive as a nation. This would force them to experience the pathetic state of affairs in Mera Bharat Mahan and understand how democracy is undermined when netas break all rules. 

Importantly, India is today at the moral crossroads. More so, in our present all pervasive decadence interspersed with growing public distaste, cynicism and despair. If not stopped now it could result in breakdown of institutions, society, culture and ethical values. 

Our rulers need to understand Parliamentary majorities are not immortal. The right to remain in power is not immortal. It gets shaken by their arrogance of power. As a new generation comes of age our leaders need to remember a home-truth: Democracy is based on the fundamental premise of equality for all. Gone are the days when leaders were revered, today they symbolise everything that plagues India, warts and all.  

Thus, in a milieu where simplicity and austerity is Utopian to our polity, it is time our high and mighty wake up to the danger lurking and smell the coffee. If they don’t change they will become increasingly irrelevant. We do not need gestures which total zilch. It remains to be seen whether our polity will continue to behave like Bahubalis and reduce hum-toh-janata-ke-sevak-hain to mere tokenism? ---- INFA

 (Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

Economic Highlights

New Delhi, 7 July 2025

The Great Scrap Vehicle

INDIA JUNKS Rs 18 Trn

By Shivaji Sarkar 

India is a powerful economy. It is now officially $4trillion — but in truth, it is far more potent. It does something no other country in the world does, not even the US: it wants to junk vehicles worth Rs18 trillion every year! 

In Delhi, 62 lakh so-called “end-of-life (ELV)” vehicles have been targeted. Policemen, unable to prevent crimes, are deployed instead to chase down and impound nearly 200 vehicles from people on their way to work, hospitals, or schools — merely for the ‘offence’ of entering Delhi or stopping at a petrol pump. It’s a new, innovative form of harassment that humiliates citizens and deprives them of property — a cruelty even the much-maligned Leftist regimes never committed. Many of these vehicle owners have just completed seven years of EMI payments. Now, the state treats their hard-earned asset as waste. 

The Quixotic policy also destroys the concept of the National Capital Region (NCR), once envisioned as an integrated urban unit across Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan and the national capital, Delhi.The central government must now scrap this unimaginative car-junking policy. Let vehicles run until they reach their true end-use — perhaps 40 years or more — and let Indian wealth grow naturally. Families maintaining vehicles with care are now being punished. Even vehicles with less than 10,000 km are being deemed unfit. 

Two crore vehicles discarded annually — that’s an astounding figure. How can any economy junk so much capital and still sustain or grow? No one has answered this. Based on an average cost of Rs 9 lakh per vehicle (with actual prices ranging between Rs 6 to Rs 13 lakh), this means Rs18 lakh crore would be destroyed every year. Including buses and trucks, this figure could cross Rs 30 lakh crore. 

This is not policy — it’s madness. The destruction of this wealth impoverishes nearly two crore families annually. Public transport in states like West Bengal is crumbling, as private operators are forced to replace old buses they cannot afford to upgrade. With vehicle costs having multiplied, and with banks reluctant to lend for “scrap” vehicles, the impact on rural mobility is devastating.Even the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) has stopped running buses into neighbouring states like UP, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. But nobody seems concerned. 

This mass scrappage is no accident. It appears to be a rigged game — a racket that enriches a few by stripping millions of their assets. The Central government has allocated Rs 5,000 crore to incentivize states, even in difficult North-East, to push scrappage — a move unheard of anywhere else in the world. No sane economy invests public money to destroy functioning wealth. 

The government’s scrap vehicle policy claiming to cut pollution is illogical. Pollution checks show that most 10-year-old vehicles emit no more than 1 percent or a bit more — hardly reason for scrapping. So, what’s the real motive?Earlier Delhi’s Sheila Dikshit Congress government had suggested restrictions on diesel and other polluting vehicles, not a ban. 

The dubious figure of banishing two crore ELVs comes from a report by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a body now embroiled in controversy. Why? Because the study was funded by one of the biggest car manufacturers Tata trusts. This creates a glaring conflict of interest. Some foreign organisations such as Sida (Sweden), MacArthur Foundation, European Commission also funded the CSE on project basis, says Jayant Mundhra, who writes about commodities, and logistics. But Tatas had a committed financing. 

A policy based on a report bankrolled by a carmaker undermines public trust. That this has gone unnoticed is due to two reasons: first, a company’s public relations machinery is unmatched in India; second, much of the media today functions as a glorified PR agency.CSE continues to push the narrative that vehicles are the main culprits behind Delhi’s pollution — a claim unsupported by facts. A National Investigation Agency (NIA) probe is needed into this nexus. 

During 2023–24 alone, 1.4 lakh vehicles were tagged ELVs, including 75 lakh light vehicles, two-wheelers and 45 lakh commercial vehicles. According to an information portal FACTLY, 6.1 crore vehicles have been labelled as ELVs — a term coined to boost automakers’ business. But life cannot be predetermined — not for people, not for machines. The “end of life” date is not divine prophecy. It’s decided by a bureaucrat, a policeman, or a scrap dealer — often in collusion. 

The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) says over 51 lakh light motor vehicles are above 20 years old, and 34 lakh above 15 years. Another 17 lakh medium and heavy vehicles run without valid fitness certificates. MoRTH claims these emit 10–12 times more pollutants than new vehicles, but this is simply not supported by emission tests.Most operational vehicles, unless poorly maintained, emit less than 2 percent as all have Euro mark. Across the world, vehicles, even airplanes, in India or the US, run for 40 years or more. India is alone in building a business on scrappage propaganda. 

Vehicular emissions account for just 12 percent of total pollution. Industry contributes 51 percent. Is this policy a smokescreen to hide industrial failures?Some say other countries also scrap vehicles. Misleading. The US introduced the end-use idea in the 1960s when junkyards overflowed. Even today, there is no age bar. As veteran journalist Hasan Suroor writes from London: “In England, no car is banned for age. If a car fails a test, it’s fixed and made roadworthy. I drive a 21-year-old car without an issue.” 

If pollution is really the concern, why did India increase coal consumption from 900 million tonnes to 1 billion tonnes in 2023–24? Why fell millions of trees to build highways? Everyone knows coal is the dirtiest fuel. It’s clear the scrappage policy is more about boosting new car sales.In fact, new cars pollute more in production than older ones in use. In Indian families, a car is a generational asset. Who can afford a new one every ten years? 

As the saying goes: “Indians are sheep, ruled by wolves.” Maybe we deserve what we tolerate.The Central government must immediately repeal this absurd rule and allow the cars have true life of 40 years. It serves no public good. It creates panic, destroys wealth, and punishes the average Indian. Let the economy grow on real strength — not artificial crises.Why should the government be in junking business when it has withdrawn from production? Let us stop hurting our people in the name of progress.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Spotlight

New Delhi, 5 July 2025

DeepSeek—China’s Vision Of World Perception

By Maciej Gaca

(Centre For Intl Relations, Poland) 

When DeepSeek-R1 debuted at a conference in Hangzhou this February, the atmosphere was electrifying and unsettling. There were loud cries of delight at possibilities it opened for programmers and companies as well as nervousness on stock exchange listing Western technology companies. There were quiet sighs too from experts fearing a new information weapon might be hiding under guise of “democratisation.” However, history teaches us that technology can just as easily facilitate concentration of power as it can emancipation. 

DeepSeek-R1 in China didn’t have to reach for tanks or prisons to monopolise the discussion. Official messages were primarily embedded in it during the learning process. As a result, instead of confronting different viewpoints, the model itself promotes a single, state-owned version of history, and users receive a ready-made, contradiction-free story as an unquestionable fact. This is a more subtle process than traditional censorship and more engaging, because the user himself willingly reaches for content that the model selects according to political guidelines dictated to him. 

DeepSeek-R1 has been met with great enthusiasm on Chinese social media. On the largest sites, Zhihu and Weibo, computer science students and novice programmers enthusiastically described the model’s lightning-fast responses, its effectiveness in solving complex algorithmic tasks, and the impressive image quality it created, as evidenced by numerous entries in the column series “从0到1了解DeepSeek” (‘from 0 to 1 we get to know DeepSeek’ - a series of short articles on Zhihu presenting the model’s functions and capabilities). However, over time, the technological experiment has become a sociological observation: users noticed that when asked about political events, R1 consistently avoided references to Tiananmen Square protests or critical analyses of Beijing, Taiwan and Xinjiang issues, it reproduced only official, party narratives. 

The breakthrough was brought by safety reports, a study published on arXiv “Safety Evaluation of DeepSeek Models in Chinese Contexts”, showing the model’s 100% effectiveness in simulated disinformation attacks and near complete rejection of content that deviated from the state line. Posts on internal educational forums instructed how to “bypass” DeepSeek’s self-censorship, but the model itself instantly blocked accounts that distributed links to independent sources. This change in mood – from admiration for the architecture and computing power, to a bitter conclusion about the ideological penetration of the neural network’s weights (numbers the model changes during training to better “understand” and favour certain information) – reveals that young Chinese increasingly see DeepSeek’s “openness” not as a true democratisation of technology, but a sophisticated mechanism for maintaining a single, official vision of the world. 

Ultimately, what’s at stake is not just technical supremacy, but the foundation of our shared cognitive space. If every powerful actor – Beijing, Washington, Brussels – introduces its own “objective” AI-generated versions of history, younger generations will find themselves at crossroads of alternative “truths” isolated in hermetic information bubbles. Without international mechanisms of mutual accountability, transparent audits of training data, and open procedures for verifying algorithms, even the most reliable open-source projects can become vehicles for narrative tyranny. And then we are one step away from turning a historical dispute into an armed conflict and from completely eroding trust in the very concept of information. 

OpenAI-ish ChatGPT, Google Bard and Meta LLaMA draw their data from a wide range of sources--international agencies such as CNN, AFP and Al-Jazeera, through academic repositories in languages, to archives of rarely cited periodicals and informal discussion forums. Only after an initial training, during which the model “swallows” entire web pages, does the arduous work of “fine-tuning” begin -- successive rounds of human evaluation, analysis of deviations from neutrality and attempts to restore balance. Of course, it was not possible to eliminate all extremes. 

Researchers from Munich and Copenhagen have shown that ChatGPT sometimes tilts towards pro-ecological and left-libertarian narratives, while Bing Chat is slightly more favourable to tech industry. Nevertheless, each is regularly audited, by Swedish FOI, Norwegian NUPI and French Fondation pour l'Innovation Politique, which describe with surgical precision where the training data comes from and what rules govern how people evaluate their answers. Thanks to this, reports can be looked at by both a defender of free speech and an activist fighting discrimination and each will find arguments to accuse the model of overrepresenting some sources or underrepresenting minority voices. 

In contrast to openness of Western solutions, DeepSeek-R1 operates “in secret” in educational chatbots or government apps in Asia and Europe, but the effect is more perfidious: instead of bypassing censorship, the model reinforces it, surrounding the user with a tight record of a uniform narrative. These are not ordinary recommendation algorithms but airtight information bubbles, in which every story, news item, piece of advice must fit the official line. Eli Pariser, an American internet activist and author of The Filter Bubble, warned a decade ago that algorithms that personalise content can cut us off from opposing views. Today, when technology tempts us with appearance of objectivity, isolation is even more dangerous. Young internet users, fed an endless stream of TikTok or WeChat, rarely verify information. One-click answers replace critical questions, and the bubble becomes their entire world. 

Prospect Foundation in a study “Narrative-Building Trumps Island- Building for Beijing in Sandy Cay” warns competition for dominant AI models threatens to spark a real “narrative war.” Similar conclusions are by a report by Taiwan Foundation for Democracy on disinformation during 2024 presidential election – analysts have shown that algorithms driven by conflicting state data sets from China, US, and Europe are creating isolated “information islands” where young recipients become accustomed to competing versions of reality and are less likely to verify them. 

Analysts emphasise while local regulations may tighten requirements for one platform or service, they won’t stop phenomenon of information fragmentation if each government implements its own AI model. French Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI), in White Paper on AI published in 2023, demands transparency of training data origin, arguing only a full list of sources allows users to understand what materials shape the model’s operation. Swedish SÄPO insists that multi-party audits by independent expert teams are necessary, which as thorough analysis of model’s code and behavior, especially in sensitive questions, can reveal hidden biases or mechanisms filtering truth. 

Both institutions also point to educating young generation in critical reception of content generated by AI. It’s worth introducing classes devoted to “algorithmic texts” at school, i.e. learning to understand how models formulate their answers and compare them with independent information sources. Without such preparation, society will be condemned to accept competing and isolated narratives as indisputable facts. Experience shows every technological revolution promotes concentration of power. DeepSeek-R1, managed and paid for in Beijing’s bureaucratic structures, is today becoming a more subtle tool of centralisation than traditional network censorship or media access blockades. 

When the model independently selects/edits historical narratives using neural network weights, it builds a performative story of the state, which over time is considered a “natural” reality. This is a seemingly bloodless cascade -- no one calls ‘Guards’ when the algorithm enters subsequent history versions into the code, and society begins to live according to these predefined patterns. 

Ultimately, what’s at stake is no longer the fight for technological supremacy, but the very foundation of our collective understanding of reality – the space in which we establish what we consider to be fact. Without clearly defined rules of accountability, mandatory audits, and transparent verification criteria, even the most “open” source models can be used to impose their own versions of the world. As Yuval warns Noah Harari (cf. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, 2018), if we do not build mechanisms to protect against fragmentation of truth into atoms, we’ll find ourselves in a world where conflicting narratives, each equally convincing, compete like feuding tribes, undermining the very meaning of the debate. 

In turn, Yanis Varoufakis (The Other Now, 2020), reminds us that in this chaos of alternative “truths”, international solidarity is weakening. Instead of facing global challenges together, we are sinking deeper and deeper into isolated information bubbles. Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum preach the slogan of “shared responsibility” for technological advancement, but it’s hard not to see how often this serves Beijing’s centralist aspirations. Under inclusiveness banner, WEF becomes a platform where authoritarian regimes, including China’s, can present their digital infrastructure as “innovation for common good” while simultaneously reinforcing systems of mass surveillance. 

If we want to avoid such a scenario, empty slogans about openness will not suffice. We need real international agreements that will enforce standards regarding the origin of data, model training processes and their controlled exploitation - as well as national laws that impose tough legal consequences for AI activity. Only in this way will technology cease to be a tool of interests and become an infrastructure on which a democratic society can be built, not a war of narratives. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 4 July 2025

Quad Meet In US

AN INDIA MOMENT!

By Dr. D.K. Giri

(Prof of Practice, NIIS Group of Institutions) 

The Quad Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Washington on 1 July opens up strategic opportunities for India. Will New Delhi make the most of it having missed the bus a few times before? This is the time for reckoning for Quad in the context of freedom and security in India Pacific in the face of Chinese belligerence. For India, Quad meetings in the run-up to the Summit later this year become doubly important as New Delhi has been somewhat marginalised in the recent SCO meet. I will juxtapose Quad against other regional structures India is part of, namely BRICS and SCO. This is to drive home the point that New Delhi has to make a choice in the current chaotic geo-political situation. 

The Foreign Ministers’ meeting at the behest of US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio was the second this year. Rubio had organised a smaller one, last January, on the fringe of Donald Trump’s swearing-in ceremony. The meeting this week sounded more assertive and definitive in its pronouncements. It excluded references to Israel-Iran war as well as Russia-Ukraine war in order to sharpen its focus on India Pacific. Although China was not mentioned by name, several statements called out Chinese high-handedness in the region - aggressive moves in East and South China Sea, needling India through Pakistan and even directly, crossing swords with Australia on its defence budget and so on. 

For the first time, Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar led the charge by asking for greater focus and cohesion in Quad. He said, “Quad will deliver better if it works in a more focused manner”. The Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya was equally forthright as he said, “Quad will shape the future of India Pacific region”. Jaishankar was, however, platitudinous when he asked for a rule-based international order. He could be more effective for India if he eschews to be esoteric. China is a threat, an adversary, a manipulator which has to be recognised and factored into India’s security strategy. 

Quad, by far, is the best strategic option for India. Quad was created in 2007 with a formal proposal by then Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Although it started as Tsunami Core Group following the earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004, there was little doubt about its real intention. That was to contain China. That is why for about a decade, Quad remained dormant, largely due to Australian concerns about potential negative impacts on its relationship with China. 

Fast forward, Quad was vigorously revived in 2017 in the face of growing assertiveness of China. Since then, Quad has experienced increased engagement, greater institutionalisation, and sharper focus. There have been regular foreign ministerial consultations, sector-level meetings, and leader-level summits. The key objective of Quad has been to ensure, “free, open, prosperous and inclusive Indo-Pacific region”. The Quad countries also participate in joint military exercises like Malabar Naval Exercise which have since expanded to include all the four countries. Significantly, Quad is perceived as an Asian NATO. 

Several experts have construed Quad as a counter-weight to China. The American think tank, Centre for a New American Security (CNAS) suggests that it is because of the rise of Chinese power Quad should serve as a tool for American statecraft. Admittedly, Quad has not yet achieved much in practice. It is because it has lacked a common ground or a coherent strategic approach. New Delhi is partly guilty of watering down Quad’s security structure by suggesting that it is a developmental and a humanitarian outfit. 

Quad provides a great strategic opportunity for India as the interest of other three members converge with India’s especially on a common Chinese threat. It beggars understanding of why India is reluctant to project Quad as a security alliance. India is a member of BRICS and SCO, initiated and largely controlled by China. BRICS has expanded beyond five founder countries to ten in order to enlist allies for China and Russia in an increasingly polarised world. For India, the recent SCO meeting was an embarrassment caused by isolation on calling out terrorism. The joint statement issued by SCO mentioned terrorism in Baluchistan but omitted to do so in Pahalgam where innocent tourists were murdered in cold blood on religious identities. 

Contrast that with the Quad Foreign Ministers condemning the Pahalgam terror attack in strong terms. It said, “The Quad unequivocally condemns all acts of terrorism and violent extremism in all its forms and manifestations including cross-border terrorism”. It added, “We call for the perpetrators, organisers and financiers of this reprehensible act to be brought to justice without any delay in accordance with their obligations under international law…. and to cooperate actively with all relevant authorities in this regard”. The phrase ‘relevant authorities’ here refers to Indian authorities. 

Quad came down heavily on China although it did not name the country by issuing unequivocal condemnation of Chinese action in South-China Sea and by implication in other sovereign and independent areas. It said, “We express our serious concerns regarding dangerous and provocative actions …. repeated obstruction of the freedom of navigation and overflight, and dangerous manoeuvers by military aircrafts and maritime militia vessels”. 

The Quad announced a few other initiatives. They agreed on a ‘new agenda’ that focuses on four key areas  - maritime security, economic prosperity, critical and emergent technologies and humanitarian assistance and disaster response. They launched a Sea - Ship Observer Mission. This is supposed to deepen cooperation in maritime field in the India Pacific. This should reduce illicit maritime activity such as piracy, drug trafficking and illegal fishing etc. 

Second critical step taken is the launch of ‘Quad Critical Minerals Initiative’. Quad members were concerned about China’s domination in critical minerals meant for emerging and new technologies. This initiative will aim at diversifying supply chains, minerals recovery and reprocessing. Quad will focus on supply chain resilience for critical minerals and will coordinate with private sector partners for increased investment in this critical field. 

All in all, Quad renewed its focus which will result sharpening Quad’s ability to leverage resources in order to face the most pressing challenges in the region. It also reiterated its opposition to any ‘unilateral action that seeks to change the status quo by force or coercion in the Indo Pacific’. This should be good news for India, Australia as well as Japan. Depending on the depth of diplomacy of these three countries, Quad should grow stronger nudging USA to take an active part in the region. Washington should fall for it as it feeds the US objective of retaining the numero uno position in the global power structure. 

To be sure, the onus of steering Quad rests largely on New Delhi as it faces the brunt of Beijing’s belligerence. New Delhi must play it cards well at least until the Quad Summit in November this year. This is important against the backdrop of Donald Trump’s flip-flops in foreign policy and New Delhi’s situation of being an Alice in the wonderland. Without doubt, New Delhi is more capable than it is perceived to be given its philosophical depth, cultural heritage and policy scruples. New Delhi will just have to recalibrate and reposition itself. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)