|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Trade War: INDIA’S RESPONSE, By Prof. DK Giri, 11 April 2025 |
|
|
Round
The World
New Delhi, 11 April 2025
Global Trade War
INDIA’S RESPONSE
By Prof. DKGiri
(Professor of
Practice, NIIS Group, Bhubaneswar)
The unilateral and universal tariff imposed
by Donald Trump had shaken the world. It has disrupted the global economy--
supply chains, export regimes and employment. What is worse, it threatens a
global war on trade. Some observers are talking about ensuing depression as
well as recession. My purpose in this piece is to assess the possibility of a
global trade war, and to examine India’s response to the emerging economic
scenario.
First of all, what is the casus belli of this
prognosis of a global war caused by Trump’s action? There are divided opinions
on it. One school of thought says that Trump’s tariff is an instrument to meet
his political objectives. Second, it is to prevent China from overtaking
America on trade and later, on GDP. Third, it is Trump’s one figment of
thinking to fix the American economy in the line of MAGA-- Making America Great
Again. These three perspectives merit some discussion.
Before we step on the causes and consequences
of, as well as response to Trump’s dramatic economic action, it is in order
that we scan the tariff he has thrown at 60 countries of the world.Trump
imposed tariff on average 10 percent affecting 60 countries. Individually, 26
per cent on India, 20 per cent on the European Union, 46 percent Vietnam, 24
percent Japan, 25 percent South Korea, 36 percent Thailand, 49 percent
Cambodia, 40 percent Sri Lanka. China’s cases significant. The tariff is 34 per
cent, if we take 20 per cent already existing against China, it is 54 per cent.
Trump is no doubt targeting China. He has imposed heavy tariff on Cambodia and
Vietnam as Chinese investment to the US is being routed through these
countries. China has declared that it would retaliate. The retribution by China
is construed as the beginning of a trade war.
Coming to the reasons for the Trumpian
tariff, the politics of the action may be that Trump wants to geo-politicise
trade to bargain with each country. By imposing tariffs universally, he sought
to disrupt the alliances, integrations, regionalisation and so on and then,
bargain with each country to secure their political and economic allegiance.
Trump is decidedly a transactionalist and loves to negotiate deals of all
kinds. That is how he can maintain the supremacy of America.
The competition by China is a more plausible
argument. The Chinese world market share of manufacturing goods is about 32 per
cent whereas that of America is around 16 per cent. The Chinese GDP is 19
trillion compared to 29 trillion of USA. Trump would not want China to catch up
or overtake. The American trade deficit with China is about 1 trillion. By
levying high tariffs on China, Trump perhaps wants to make up the trade deficit
and revive its own manufacturing sector.
The third reason follows from the second,
which is fixing the American economy. Manufacturing in any country creates jobs
and generates growth. Unemployment in America has been rising. Hence, Trump
wants to rejuvenate the domestic manufacturing sector by reducing competition
from foreign countries. It is another matter that consumers will be forced to
buy foreign goods at a higher price in the absence of domestic production. This
will lead to inflation. When American buyers cannot affordat such suddenly
inflated rates, money circulation will shrink leading to stagnation. Both
combine to cause what economists call a portmanteau,
stagflation(stagnation+inflation). This will have the contrary consequence for
the American economy.
Are the tariffs reciprocal as claimed by the
Trump Administration? No, they are protectionist. By any calculation, they are
not reciprocal. One formula used for levying tariffs is to take the total trade
deficit with a country and take half of that and levy it as a tariff. But that
is not the case with each country.
Will the tariffs lead to a trade war? It
seems a remote possibility. Remember, the total imports of America from the
World are 13 per cent. So, the rest 87 per cent is immune to the Trumpian
tariff. So, if the countries create alternative markets and make alliances,
they can withstand the tariff tension on their economies. For instance, it is
reported that the trade ministers of Japan, South Korea and China met a few
days ago to curate a trade alliance of some kind to counter American action.
Also, Trump is known for changing his mind.
If he finds the going is tough, he will change the course. He is testing the waters.
He had made a tariff hike his poll promise. This is to perhaps fulfil that. He
will roll it back if it boomerangs on America. At the time of writing, he has
declared 90 days pause on the tariff except on China.
How is India responding to it? One strategy is
keeping quiet in view of the strategic proximity between two countries. Second
is to negotiate a bilateral trade agreement quite soon. New Delhi is aiming to
sign it when Trump arrives in Delhi for Quad Summit later this year. And the
third, which it may perforce do is to carry out the much-needed trade reforms
and revisit some of the tariffs in a few sectors. For instance, according to
the Whitehouse factsheet, India imposes 50 per cent tariff on apples from the
USA. Is it necessary?
As per the same factsheet, New Delhi has NTBs
like quality control and certification against certain American items on
telecom, chemicals and medical devices. Those can go. Trump says India is the
tariff king of the world. Indian economy had been dubbed a protectionist
economy bordering on dirigisme from 1947 to 89. It opened up only in 1991.
After that momentous period, reforms stalled.
That said, the loss of India’s revenue from
exports to USA is calculated at 3.6 billion dollars which is 0.1 or 0.2 per
cent of India’s GDP. Should the negotiations fail,India can live with that. But
the larger point is that India should treat this as ironic opportunity like it
did in 1991 foreign currency crisis and 1998 Pokhran-II consequences and fix
its own economy especially the trade regime. Each crisis could be a blessing in
disguise. India could negotiate with America, not for years on end as it has
been with EU, but it must put its house in order. There is a deepening
dichotomy between political rhetoric and economic reality. That must end sooner
than later.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Op Sindoor: Pak Badnam Hua: DARLINGS, KIS KE LIYE!, By Poonam I Kaushish, 13 May 2025 |
|
|
Political Diary
New
Delhi, 13 May 2025
Op Sindoor: Pak Badnam Hua,
DARLINGS, KIS KE LIYE!
By Poonam I Kaushish
Every
tragedy falls into two parts: a complication is followed by denouncement and
unraveling, said Aristotle. Pakistan learnt the hard way post 22 April’s terror
strike killing 22 tourists in Pahalgam. In this battle, Prime Minister Modi has
come out trumps. Not only did he payback for Pahalgam, change the terms of
engagement “Water and blood cannot flow together” but showed the world “Jo kaha woh kiya! Ye nyay ki akhand pratigya
hai.”
In
just 25 minutes Operation Sindoor, India defined a new normal: Raising
Pakistan’s cost of a terror strike. Whereby, New Delhi made it unequivocally
clear to Islamabad that terrorist incidents will neither be ignored nor
tolerated. A calculated doctrinal of zero tolerance to terrorism. Whereby, it
is willing to do the job that Pakistan is unwilling or cannot do --- Eliminate
terrorists.
Importantly, India
sent three clear messages: Kashmir is no longer a bilateral issue between
neighbours. It is no longer an issue at all. The only real matter between the
two is Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). Two, it has no compunctions of crossing
the Line of Control (LoC) and striking Lakshar-e-Taiba
and Jaish-e-Moammed’s bases Muridke
and Bahawalpur. Alongside, debilitating strikes on over 12 military bases
including Lahore and Jacobabad.
Thereby, reiterating every
act of terrorism will be considered an “act of war” and receive proportionate
response. Three, suspension of Indus Waters Treaty and trade bans will continue
keeping relations strained given Pakistan's economic and financial constraints.
Clearly,
Pakistan has got caught between a rock and hard place even as it conveys not
rolling over and playing dead by starting a new cyclical political-economy of
violence on military and civilian infrastructure. But to what avail? Showcasing
to the world be it US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc
that it is the fountainhead of terror. Earning it the ignominy: Pakistan
badnam hua,darling kiske liye!
Little
did it realize that terrorism and escalation by State actors need funding that
leaves, however, nebulous a money trail. This is what got Islamabad on the grey
list of Financial Action Task Force, the global money laundering and terrorist
financing watchdog.
Both
sides have made their point. Both used military escalation to test the other's
resolve and find strengths and weaknesses of their defenses. Both realize they
cannot prevail in a war without inflicting and sustaining massive destruction.
Undoubtedly, this precarious
unpredictable uneasy truce has triggered long term instability and hostilities between
the warring neighbours. It highlights the fragility of such agreements in the
context of deep-seated mistrust and the complex dynamics of civil-military
relations, particularly in Pakistan.
In fact since 2019
Indo-Pak ties have been delicate as there have been no diplomatic engagement and
New Delhi and Islamabad are in the race for armed one upmanship and inflicting
damage. Since 2014 India has had three military crisis with Pakistan, Uri 2016
, Balakot 2019 and now.
Underscoring this
paradigm shift in its Pak policy, New Delhi made plain that past precedents are
not binding on it in its dealing with recalcitrant Islamabad and its
terrorists’ army. This was communicated to over 25 countries. Modi’s success
internationally can be gauged by the firm US backing to the strikes,
notwithstanding President Trump taking credit for the truce.
Despite India’s upper
hand, not a few feel discontent over agreeing to a ceasefire arguing Pakistan
should not have been spared this time. This is understandable but a deeper
analysis shows India achieved its intended goals by inflicting significant
damage on Pakistan through its operation.
Some observers believe this lull will hold in
the short term due to international pressure with both countries recognising
costs of escalation. Or it’s a ruse to reinforce before another offensive.
Perhaps. The worry is the long term instability that these hostilities have
triggered. The next Pahalgam attack would mean a full scale war. And this time
it will start on a much higher escalatory ladder.
Undeniably, though
the de-escalation might mark the end of India-Pakistan worst military
confrontation in 25 years, relations with Pakistan are likely to continue to be
challenging and will not lead easily to an enduring peace. Specially, till
Islamabad shuts its tap on terrorism.
New Delhi has managed
to push Pakistan to the margins of international relevance. Islamabad’s goal is
to drag India’s confrontation so that the world starts viewing them as equals.
But our goals are greater. Economic power-house and self reliance. We cannot
let our guard down given that a hurt Islamabad might be licking its wounds but
is readying to fight another day.
True, it is not in
the interest of either country or peace and stability in the region to have a
larger military conflict. Asserted a defence strategist “New Delhi is facing two
difficult relationships at the same time – Pakistan and China. This escalation
has created a two-front problem for India. India's Pakistan problem does not
exist in isolation. It comes with other geopolitical factors like our difficult
relationship with China. It has to manage all of this along with its ambitions
of becoming a superpower, its growing economy and favourable external climate
globally.”
With an economically
and politically bankrupt Pakistan has less to lose and more to gain. India understands
future containment requires more than kinetic action, it needs to force
Islamabad’s hand by taking out terrorist infrastructure and its funding routes
along-with shoring up international support in a Trump-skittled world. Make
Pakistan’s Establishment know that wages of war are inexorably high.
For now, both
militaries remain on high alert but the risk of further flare-ups --- for
instance through misinterpreting drone activity or artillery fire --- remains
high, especially in contested areas along the LoC. Pakistan will fight tooth
and nail for the abeyance of the Indus Water Treaty by India
What next? New Delhi
new assertiveness would need all the wisdom and restraint to ensure that it
remains in control of the Indo-Pak script as both have limited room for
imposing costs on each other, without risking major catastrophe. With Pakistan
weak or strong there is no avoiding the political process in the sub-continent.
South Block knows
only too well a war with Pakistan would cast a shadow over India’s growing
economy—it’s the fastest-growing big economy in the world—as well as raising
international alarm. Holding out threat of a nuclear threat is more of a
deterrent as it a well established norm that since Hiroshima in 1945 technology
in a unipolar world talk of nuclear war is baloney. Hence the plan to escalate
this diplomatically and politically.
It remains to be seen
if the latest crisis has strengthened Pakistan Army Chief Gen Munir’s hold over
power or it has cracked open some space for civilian leaders who pushed for
de-escalation despite the Army Chief’s hard line. One hopes it realizes the
dangers of war and results in deeper introspection of its tragic state of
affairs, even as it continues the muscle-flexing and war rhetoric.
In sum much work is
needed going forward to ensure we don't see a repeat of this crisis and that
should be the primary focus for both sides. It will take a lot more to address
the long-term distrust between the two countries. As a rising global power,
India has a lot to lose and has a lot to manage because of this escalation. The
next few years will tell us how it's going to play out.
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Kamandal = Mandal 2.0: NOT WHO, BUT WHAT, By Poonam I Kaushish, 6 May 2025 |
|
|
Political Diary
New
Delhi, 6 May 2025
Kamandal = Mandal 2.0
NOT WHO, BUT WHAT
By Poonam I Kaushish
Circa
1901: “I don’t believe in caste in the modern sense as it connotes distinction
in status and is an evil,” Mahatma Gandhi. After him, Ambedkar waged a
relentless struggle against caste arguing for its annihilation to rebuild a
social democracy. Alas, from a social phenomenon that divided people, caste has
become central to our political system. Not who, but what you are.
Circa
2025: Call it a turning point or milestone every Party wants to know the caste
composition of a voter, constituency before selecting a candidate. Succinctly,
its’ the State catching up with the lived socio-economic and political reality
as it shapes hierarchy and discrimination, culture and belonging. That too, by using
Ambedkar’s name to perpetuate a system that he fought.
BJP
which battled caste surveys that militated against its concept of Hindu unity
has today embraced it marking a momentous ideological shift. Reason? Caste is
at the heart of Indian politics as a mobilization tool polarised on caste basis
with elections being fought on caste considerations. Voters are regressively
but decisively voting along caste lines. The upsurge of OBCs and their demand
for a more equitable participation and representation make quotas and queues
the centerpiece of affirmative action policies at the Centre.
Post
its’ below par performance in last year’s Lok Sabha polls specially in UP BJP
decided to bite the bullet aided by RSS putting its seal of approval and Bihar allies
JD (U) and LJP plugging it. Blunting India Bloc shrill demand for caste census,
it wrested the idea and announced it. No matter, it’s recent assertion of
recognizing only four castes: women, farmers, poor and youth.
Besides,
it is worried about possible OBC attrition in elections in crucial States Bihar
this year, followed by Assam, Tamil Nadu and Kerala 2026, the Saffron Sangh now
seeks a broader social coalition that can translate into pan-India support.
With Kamandal (Hindutva) as a steady
ideological base, BJP is now experimenting with MandaI 2.0 aimed at socially inclusive vote consolidation.
Consequently,
as caste census becomes the central focus in national politics the Party
doesn’t want to remain a mute spectator, instead become an active proponent
signalling its intent to lead rather than resist by including caste enumeration
in the coming census.
In
fact, a BJP insider avers the Party has repeatedly recalibrated its social
engineering to suit evolving political realities and forms Modi’s rise in 2014 when it shed its ‘suit boot ki sarkar’ image through welfare schemes like Ujjwala Awas Yojana to appeal to poorer sections across castes. Post Supreme
Court’s dilution of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 2018, NDA Government
restored its provision despite backlash from upper castes in States.
Thereafter,
it introduced a 10% Economically Weaker Section (EWS) to retain upper castes
votes. Thereby, showcasing its responsiveness to social undercurrents which
worked in Maharashtra and Haryana but not Jharkhand resulting in two
consecutive defeats.
Pertinently,
Bihar, Karnataka and Telangana have completed caste surveys. Interestingly, the
results also subtly endorsed the idea of giving representation to Muslims based
on their caste by categorising various Muslim communities under different caste
umbrellas.
But
what will be done with that knowledge? BJP’s ally in Bihar JD(U) released its
caste survey in October 2023 as part of RLD-Congress Mahagathbandhan whereby
63% of the State’s 13 crore population belonged to castes under EBC and OBC
categories SC 19.65% and upper castes 15.52%.
In
Congress-ruled Karnataka Muslims are the single largest community 12.87%, next SC
12% with politically and economically powerful Lingayats 11.09% third, Vokkaligas10.31%
fourth, Kurubas 7.38%, ST 7.1%, ST Valmiki-Nayaka 30,31,656 (5.07%). In Telangana
56.33% are Backward Classes, SCs/STs 17.43% and 10.45%, Muslim 12.56%.
Currently, BJP sees OBCs
as two blocks --- dominant and non-dominant, upper and lower. It intends to woo
dominant castes like Yadavs, Kurmis, and Kushwahas in Bihar and UP and
Vokkaligas in Karnataka. Any sub-categorisation will close doors on these sub-castes
and make Mandal 1 progenies Akhilesh, Lalu and Nitish stronger in their
communities.
Both BJP and Congress
recognize they have to address caste as a political category, not through
patronage. True, enumerating caste will help with accurate information ---
size, literacy levels, occupational structures. It helps structuring
opportunity and social mobility. It influences choices and trajectories from
education, employment, birth, marriage and death ritiuals. It would immediately
be visible if a caste is denied basic facilities and infra.
A
caste census would help address historical injustices and discrimination, be
useful in formulating appropriate policies to target Government welfare schemes
and policies ensuring they reach intended beneficiaries. Thereby, giving the
rootless down-trodden a new identity and attitudinal changes.
Questionably,
none are wiser how JD(U) or Congress-ruled Karnataka and Telangana have used
surveys for targeted interventions since there release? Also, caste sizes will
always be a hot potato. See how Karnataka is facing deluge of accusations of
inaccuracy from both within and BJP. What use caste enumeration if its outcome
is limited to power politics?
Already,
BJP is worried about the running feud between UP’s upper caste Rajput Chief
Minister Yogi with OBC MLAs alongside OBC allies Apna Dali and Nishad Parties
Anupriya Patel and Sanjay Nishad. As also in Bihar.
Indisputably,
caste is a major socio-political fault line which will influence political
alignments and voter choices and form the core of affirmative action by the
State. A census will force Parties to reset their approach to political
representation questions and reshape their stance on reservation.
Truth
is Governments have limited capacity to wholesale improve socio-economic
inequalities as caste numbers are likely to spur agitations for more quotas in
the name of affirmative action which is all a Government can do. To pull people
out of economic backwardness Government needs to facilitate economic
investment, education and training of youth for employment.
Without
these pillars no amount of data collected and collated it is going to be status
quo for those discriminated against and forced to remain socially backward.
Fundamental to progress is education, health, mobility, law and order and
availability and access to justice. A caste census is not vital to ensure this. Also it could
ensnare one in an ‘identity trap’ which should be dealt with simultaneously.
A
lot will depend on how the caste questionnaire is designed along-with
connecting the dots between data and Government policy. Certainly, the census
will pave the way for delimitation exercise --- OBC numbers and the gaps they
point to may blunt the North-South fault line. It may lead to demands for
extending quotas and for removing Supreme Court’s cap of 50% reservation.
Clearly,
caste is a slippery slope as Janata Dal’s VP Singh of Mandal 1.0 learnt the
hard way. There are many challenges ahead. For BJP it is a risky gamble as it
goes against its ideological grain and presumed interest of its oldest and
loyal support base. However, this pivot is inescapable as it pursues the idea
of a consolidated Hindu society. If played smartly, it may help the Party sweep
aside the Mandal legacy and assume ownership of OBC empowerment.
In
the ultimate, the fight for getting the upper hand and votes has been reduced
to politics of optics and perception, underscoring present reality and exposes
the socio-political undercurrents at play. Time will tell how the gambit of
caste census plays out and shapes the future of Indian democracy. ----- INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Pahalgam Terror Tango: BLEEDING PAK WITH 1000 CUTS, By Poonam I Kaushish, 29 April 2025 |
|
|
Political Diary
New
Delhi, 29 April 2025
Pahalgam Terror Tango
BLEEDING PAK WITH
1000 CUTS
By Poonam I Kaushish
Circa April 16, 2025: Twenty four year-old
Himanshi is exhilarated and dreams of a married
life
with 26 year old Lt Narwal.
Circa April 22, 2025:
Himanshi is widowed. Even as bridal bangles jingle on wrists and sindoor is fresh in her hair reminder of
a honeymoon hacked to death.
Narwal
was among 26 male tourists enjoying their holiday with families in salubrious Baisaran
Pahalgam killed. Words fail me in the horror of the savage terror attack which began
as collating beautiful memories, ended in a page soaked with blood and tears. Plunging
the country into grief and provoking nationwide anger demanding retribution.
Predictably,
Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) offshoot The
Resistance Front (TRF) owned up only to retract later in the face of worldwide
condemnation. The denial is disbelieved thanks to the litany of
Pakistani-directed terrorist attacks following 1999 Kargil conflict.
Yet,
one thought post Uri and 2019 Balakot strike to avenge the Pulwama attack on a
78 vehicles convoy of 2500 CRPF jawans travelling from Jammu to Srinagar,
terrorists had learnt a lesson. But one was wrong.
Undoubtedly,
payback will follow. Prime Minister Modi has made plain, “India will identify,
track, punish every terrorist and their backers bigger than they can imagine
and we will pursue them to the ends of Earth.” Already New Delhi has taken
punitive action below the military threshold: Kept 64-year-old Indus Water
Treaty in abeyance, closed Attari border, sent Pakistani visa holders back, expelled
more Pakistani diplomats and withdrawn its attaches from Islamabad.
Yet,
as New Delhi chooses the next course of action it will be difficult to shake of
the sense of despair this kind of terrorism produces. A successful military
operation might be an act of justice. It might restore a sense of confidence in
the Government’s capabilities and perhaps satiate the desire for revenge. But
even if these actions are successful we will continue to remain close to the
edge of an abyss.
As
we have seen this movie once too often, with antecedents going back to the
1980s and 1990s. Whereby, the script is tiresomely familiar: Islamist terror groups
created, armed, trained, and guided by Pakistan’s ISI, kill innocents in India.
Islamabad denies involvement even as groups therein “take credit” for attacks.
The world denounces it. India carefully calibrates its response so as not to
provoke a larger war. Once the tension settles everyone settles back to
business-as-usual. Until it happens again.
Undeniably,
the attack exposes the tenuous links in Pakistan’s ruling troika ----
Establishment, Army and ISI. New Delhi, times out of number forgets that its
neighbour has been nurtured on a military psyche whereby it views India as an
ideological, not solely military problem fed on a staple anti-India tirade
since 1947. For the troika seeped in armed tradition along-with its jihadist
proxies, the ‘core’ issue of Kashmir is an article of faith. Succinctly,
described by late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as “bleeding India with a thousand cuts.”
Pahalgam
shows Pakistan is the biggest enemy of normalcy in Kashmir. Defence strategists
aver Islamabad timed the attack as it is
desperate for wider confrontation to deflect global attention from its own
existence-threatening domestic failings. It wants US, China to get involved.
Confessed Pakistan Defence Minister, “We have been supporting, training and
funding terrorist organisations for three decades as dirty work for the West
--- US and Britain.”
As
India readies for a strong and swift response it should not take the bait,
instead hit Pakistan where it hurts by working closely with Iran, Afghanistan
and China. With US President Trump breathing down its neck Beijing wants to
restore cordial ties with New Delhi. Can it get Islamabad to crackdown on terrorists?
If not, we know it will never abandon its “all-weather friend.”
In
this age of real politik, India will remain at the mercy of terrorist
organizations which will always have the upper hand in choosing the time and
place of the next attack. Our leaders should not be under any illusion that the
death of the fidayeens will deter jihadis operating from Pakistan and
their State sponsors from carrying on their irrational jihad. In fact, they
could raise a lethal phase of violence, notwithstanding Islamabad’s diplomatic
isolation.
What next? New Delhi
needs all its wits, military intelligence, resources, wisdom and restraint to
ensure that it remains in control of the Indo-Pak script and teach Pakistan
their criminal behaviour will exact a heavy price. One way is to adopt the
Israeli Defence Forces strategy which aims to cause the opponent more damage
(quantitatively and qualitatively) than the opponent caused Israel in the same
time span. The fear of punitive retaliation would delay the next conflict and
restrain the enemy's ambitions.
For
the success of any strategy be it combative or “limited” war one needs national
will, great swiftness and sagacity more than readiness to use military power.
War is an option every nation prepares. This entails a clear view of where the
dangers lie, and of what kinds of responses are necessary to meet those
dangers. It includes also a basic, crystalline faith that India is on the right
path and that Kashmir is worth defending.
While
an overt message needs to be sent, covert operations will also have to be
enhanced. Key militant leaders and infrastructure within Pakistan cannot be
allowed to feel secure. India must also employ cyber warfare tactics to disrupt
militant communications and operations.
Consequently,
the success of counter-terrorism lies in degrading LeT, JeM and TRF capabilities,
forcing them to change their intentions and denying them opportunities to
strike. New Delhi needs to think of ways
to neutralise their fast-growing domestic base, availability of hardware and
human resource, collaborative linkages with organized crime, gun runners, drug
syndicates, hawala operators,
subversive radical groups etc.
For any
anti-terrorist operation to succeed one must be focused on the vitals, keeping
a watch on the essentials, deliberate and debate the options and leave the
desirables till the vitals have been achieved and essentials addressed. One
only hopes that whatever action the Government takes is prudent in the larger
sense, not performative or reckless.
Certainly, in this
zero-sum game, muscle-flexing, war rhetoric and one-upmanship will continue
till Kashmir is resolved. Pahalgam’s horror is a stark reminder the policy of “benign
neglect” India had pursued towards Pakistan doesn’t work. We need to be tough
to punish and deter cross-border transgressions. Make clear that protection to
terrorists by Islamabad is unacceptable. They need to be smoked out and bombed,
a la US seals of Osama bin Laden at Abbottabad.
Our
leaders must understand the nature of threat and adopt a strategy that’s in
tune with the situation. Any Indian response to Pahalgam will therefore involve
a mix of measures targeting Pakistan and international community. India's
message must teach Pakistan's military leadership their criminal behaviour will
exact a heavy price. Security agencies have to uncover terror networks and
linkages to nail the perpetrators. It must choose targets and path carefully
while firewalling citizens from consequences.
Modi
knows only too well staying ahead is the name of the game. The nation which
survives is the one that rises to meet the moment, which has the wisdom to
recognize the threat and the will to turn it back, and does so before it is too
late. Modi has made plain: Let not any one kick India around with tall talk of
bleeding India with a thousand cuts! Will Pakistan heed? ----- INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Language Wars: GAME OF POWER?, By Poonam I Kaushish, 22 April 2025 |
|
|
Political Diary
New
Delhi, 22 April 2025
Language Wars
GAME OF POWER?
By Poonam I Kaushish
A
rose by any other name would smell as sweet, said Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet.
A quote which underscores the war of words over language across India: Hindi vs Tamil vs Urdu vs Marathi etc. A
political tongue-twister!
The
decades-old spat over Hindi imposition in Tamil Nadu has erupted again. Wherein,
Prime Minister Modi’s Government is locked in a bitter dispute with DMK Government
accusing New Delhi of trying to impose Hindi on schools, a charge that New
Delhi denies. Along-with a war of words over NDA Sarkar denying education funds to the State by using the Nation
Education Policy (NEP), as a smokescreen
to push Hindi, given State’s refusal to accept the three-language formula.
Modi
mocked Tamil leaders, “Ministers talk about pride in their language but always
write letters to me and sign off in English. Why don’t they use Tamil language?
Where is their Tamil pride?” Chief Minister Stalin replied with an ominous
warning, “Don’t throw stones at a beehive…Don’t aspire to see the unique
fighting spirit of Tamils.”
Questionably,
what’s the spat about? Is Modi Government’s trying to force Tamil children to
learn Hindi? Why is Hindi so divisive in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra ? What do
all have against Urdu?
Succinctly,
the dispute is all about the NEP, introduced in 1968 and updated in 2020. The
original policy mandated a three-language formula. Hindi-speaking States in Northern
India were required to teach Hindi, English and a third Indian language in
school – preferably a language from Southern India. Non-Hindi-speaking States
needed to teach local language, Hindi and English. Tamil Nadu’s neighbouring States
also speak Dravidian languages like Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam.
The
idea behind the three-language formula was to push Hindi as a link language in
a country which is home to the world’s largest pool of languages. The Constitution
recognises 121 languages, including 22 as official. While, Hindi is widely
spoken by 520 million (43%) Tamil, fifth in place, is spoken by 69 million (5.7%)
people.
When
revised 2020, the Education policy retained the three-language formula but
allowed more flexibility for regions to choose three languages, with at least
two being Indian. But even that is unacceptable to Tamil Nadu, because it never
accepted the three-language formula. Only two languages, Tamil and English are
taught in schools.
Ditto Maharashtra
where language continues to be a sensitive issue. The State Government's move to introduce Hindi as a compulsory
third language for primary classes in Marathi and English-medium schools has touched a raw
nerve. Opposition Congress and Thackeray's Shiv
Sena have voiced strong objections against Centre's
three-language policy. They want a ‘Marathi first’ policy citing Tamil Nadu’s
example. Arguing the State formed in 1960
following an agitation by Maharashtra Sangarsh Samiti which advocated formation
of a State of native Marathi speakers.
Even
as the State boasts of being a melting pot of people of different cultures, States
and coexistence, the reality is different. The state of coexistence is not a
given, but constantly negotiated by Marathi and non-Marathi migrant residents.
Add to it competition for resources and jobs often upsets the delicate balance
of interest and populist politicians weaponise language to fuel resententment
and polarise voters for electoral gains.
In
fact, many metros --- Bengaluru, Chennai, Mumbai and Gurugram have experienced
such divisive politics vis-à-vis street
mobilizations and privileging of local language over other languages to
legislate action for reserving job for
native residents.
Besides,
in 1953, Telugu speaking people, (81 million) agitated which led to Andhra
Pradesh breaking away from Tamil Nadu. That set the template for linguistic re-organisation
of all Indian States a few years later. State borders were redrawn, mostly on
the basis of who spoke which language.
And
many States other than Tamil Nadu also opposed mandatory teaching in Hindi
under the 1968 education policy. But only Tamil Nadu broke with the national
decree and pursued a two-language formula – Tamil and English.
Today,
Urdu too has ignited a controversy. Supreme Court while hearing a petition
challenging Urdu’s use on a municipal building’s signboard and whether it
flouted ‘Rajbhasha’ Marathi observed,
“The prejudice against Urdu stems from the misconception that Urdu is alien to
India. This is incorrect. Urdu, like Hindi and Marathi is an Indo-Aryan
language. It’s a language born in this land.”
Undoubtedly,
the ruling highlighted the Constitutional right to linguistic diversity but
also emphasized Urdu’s integral role in India’s syncretic cultural and
intellectual heritage. Increasingly viewed through the narrow prism of identity
politics that considered Urdu to be an Islamic import, there has been a push
back against Urdu. In February, Urdu was noticeably absent in UP’s list of
languages for translation in Assembly’s proceedings.
Critics
argue, “Bluntly, language has always been a major fault line in our polity which
has also shaped the contour of our federalism. Worse, language is a game of
power, the power to impose your code or language. It’s not about communication.
Like, you don’t know this language therefore you have less power than me.”
Pertinently,
the three-language formula was not ever put in place keeping children’s
education in mind but to address speakers who refused to accept Hindi
imposition. Adding, Centre is supposed to represent India and all of its myriad
languages but its focus is primarily n pushing Hindi.
“Government is investing and promoting Hindi. Example: All Government’s schemes bear Hindi names: Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana, Pradhan
Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana etc. Also it has a dedicated Hindi Division to
promote Hindi overseas, including translations, speeches and statements through
embassies. It plans to send 3000 Hindi teachers to Northeastern States, where Hindi
is not common”.
Other
argue for treating all recognized languages as equals and against the
imposition of any one language as official or national.
Realistically,
while most non-Hindi speaking States taught Hindi, most Hindi-speaking States
picked Sanskrit as the third language which is not in everyday use any more ,
though it is being taught in schools as it is a high-scoring subject
However,
one fails to understand the brouhaha about Hindi as under NEP 2020, Hindi is an
optional third language for non-Hindi-speaking States, not mandatory --- that
too for the first time. The Government insists it promotes use of non-Hindi
languages. Regional languages, including Tamil are used for in examinations for
Central administration jobs.
Remember,
language is not religion. It does not represent religion. Language belongs to a
community, region and people. Language is culture. Rather than drawing a dividing
line all languages should be celebrated as a meeting ground, an oven tapestry
of ideas, culture and people.
As
a Hindi poet said, “Majdhaar mein naiya
dole to maanjhi paar lagaaye, maanjhi jo naav duboye useh kaun bachaye? (If
boat shakes midstream, boatman takes it across, if boatman sinks boat, who will
save it?)
Clearly,
the histories of States need to be kept in mind as Centre engages with their
Governments which refuse to yield any inch on language. Aspiring for a monolingual
existence is a fraught idea which militates against India’s political and
Constitutional history. More so, in a unipolar and multi-language world.
The
big challenge is to balance linguistic sub-nationalism with Unitarian demands
of the nation- State. Both can co-exist in a federal system. The periodic and
perhaps, inevitable rise in tensions need to be negotiated in a give-and-take spirit
as also within principles outlined in the Constitution. Will all abide? ---- INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
|
More...
-
Karnataka Caste Census: POLITICS TURNED ON ITS HEAD,By Poonam I Kaushish, 15 April 2025
-
Wakf Act: MOUNTAIN OUT OF MOLEHILL, By Poonam I Kaushish, 8 April 2025
-
Multilateral:WTO Trumped INDIA TILTS TO CHINA, RUSSIA, EU, By Shivaji Sarkar, 7 April 2025
-
What’s Next For Pax Americana?, By Ewa Fronczak, 5 April 2025
| << Start < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| Results 73 - 81 of 6263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|