Round The World

New Delhi, 28 May 2021

Nepal Govt Formation

IS INDIA NEUTRAL?

By Dr D.K.Giri

(Professor of International Politics, JIMMC)

Nepal was thrown into a political crisis in December 2020, when President Bidya Devi Bhandari dissolved Parliament and announced fresh elections. There is no government in Kathmandu since. The 31-millioncountry is grappling with Covid-19, like other countries in the world. The absence of a credible and stable government is making matters worse. Government of India says Nepal’s present political crisis is their internal matter and would not interfere with it. Is New Delhi neutral? Should it be? Let us explore.

The chronology of the present crisis. The Lower House was terminated by the President on the advice of incumbent Prime Minister KPS Oli who lost the majority in the 275-member House following the split of his party and withdrawal of support by the party led by Puspa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda).To recall, KPS Oli became Prime Minister by merger of the two communist parties, one led by him called the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) and the other Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist faction) helmed by Prachanda. The two parties merged on 17 May 2018 to form the Nepal Communist Party and became the ruling party.

The formation of the new party out of the merger was nullified by the Supreme Court following a complaint by Rishi Kattel, who was the leader of the Nepal Communist Party which was formed before the merger of the two parties. Kattel petitioned that the name of his party was copied by Oli and Prachanda. The apex court maintained the petition and derecognised the new party. Oli lost no time in reviving his old party, Communist Party of Nepal (UML). At any rate, there were bitter internecine feuds between both the factions, short of a split. The decision of the highest court hastened and formalised the split.

As Prachanda withdrew support in December, Oli advised the President to dissolve the House and announce fresh elections on 30 April and 10 May. The Opposition parties went to the Supreme Court against the decision of the president. On 24 February 2021, the apex court reinstated the Parliament, but the inter-party and intra-party squabbles continued unabated. The government was hardly functioning. Then, according to the article 100(1) of the Constitution, Prime Minister Oli decided to seek a trust vote. It was taken on 10 May which Oli lost. As per Article 101(3), the Prime Minister had to be relived of the post.

Oli managed to get only 93 votes short of 43 votes to cross the halfway mark in an effective strength of 231 members in the House. The votes against were 124 and 15 were neutral. The members present were 232 in all. Speaker Agni Sapkota announced that the confidence was defeated. According to Article 76(2) of the Nepali Constitution, the President should call the leaders who have the support of parties to stake claim to form the government.

The Nepali Congress led by Sher Bahadur Deuba, supported by Prachanda of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), and Upendra Yadav leading one faction of Janata Samajbadi Party, Nepal (JSP-N) submitted a list of 149lawmakers to stake their claim to form the government. Interestingly, Oli also submitted a list of 153 Members asserting majority in the House. Apparently, some of the names figured in both lists. The President at this stage invoked Article 76 (3) to invite Oli again to form the government. This Article states, if any leader is unable to form the government with a demonstrated majority, the President can invite the leader of the single largest party to become Prime Minister. Oli’s is the biggest party in the Lower House with 121 members, followed by Nepali Congress with 63, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) with 49, and the Janabadi Samajbadi Party with 34. There are four   Independents and four vacant seats.

Oli was re-appointed as Prime Minister who advised the President that any member of the House could be given a chance to gather majority support to form the government. This he did when there was no vacancy for the PM as he was holding the position. The President gave less than 24 hours to the Members to sake their claim. While this process was on, Oli advised the dissolution of Parliament and General elections be held inNovember 2021. The Opposition parties have once again gone to the apex court against the decision of the President, who they allege is hands-in-gloves with Oli.At the time of writing, the Court was to give its judgement.

Many insiders in Nepal say that a stable government would have been formed if New Delhi helped. Although Government of India announces its neutrality, it is in close contact with the parties in Kathmandu. The Rajendra Mahanto and Mahant Thakur faction of the Janasamajbadi Party is in touch with the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu. Even Oli who is perceived to be anti-India has made up with Indian leadership to gain support of the Madhesi leaders to run the government.

The buzz in Nepal political circles is Oli uses anti-India rhetoric during the elections to whip up nationalist support and after the elections, he changes his stance. Perhaps New Delhi is unsure of Oli after his government made unilateral claim to 330 sq km of Indian territory comprising Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipulekh Pass. He brought out a map showing this patch as Nepal’s got it ratified by Parliament.

This land is of great strategic significance to India. Lipulekh Pass is the shortest land route between India and China. New Delhi was aghast that, all of a sudden, perhaps at the behest of Beijing, Nepal should make this claim upsetting the geo-political security in the face of an aggressive and expansionist China. The relations were considerably strained after this dramatic step by Oli government, but he seems to have made up since. Recently, he passed the new citizenship Act which would allow children of parents to be Nepali Citizen by descendance if either of the parent is a Nepali citizen. It was meant to appease the Madhesi who still have wide marital relations with Indians.

Nepalis feel they are and should be closer to India than China, but are disappointed with New Delhi’s hegemonic or indifferent approach to Nepal. In the last blockade by Madhesi parties during the writing of the country’s Constitution, the New Delhi stood by the Madhesi, not the entire country causing heavy suffering to Nepali population,which relies critically on the supplies from and through India.

Now again, South Block seems to be supporting a faction of Madhesi party obstructing the formation of a stable government. Nepali observers feel that the Indian Foreign Minister is ill-disposed to Nepali leadership whereas the Prime Minister is behind the Nepali government. During the premiership of Sushil Koirala, Jaishankar who was the ForeignSecretary then seemed to have run roughshod with Nepali government as Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on his visit to Kathmandu,assured his counterpart that he would support Nepal’s autonomy and sovereignty in writingtheir own Constitution.

Obviously, inter-governmental relationship is also a matter of communication and confidence building. Modi was an instant hit in his first trip to Kathmandu as Prime Minister. Jaishankar, however, well intentioned has been a bureaucrat spending all his time in files and furniture with little party-political skills. The GOI should give a hand in stabilising Nepal politics as per the norms and the Constitution. It may be losing the goodwill of one neighbour after another with Beijing on the prowl to grab influence in the region. India playing its cards effectively is in the interest of Kathmandu as well as, in the longer run, of New Delhi. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 21 May 2021

Israel-Palestine Clashes

INDIA’S  BALANCING ACT

By Dr D.K.Giri

(Prof. International Politics, JIMMC)

After a few years of relative peace, Israel and Palestine are once again caught in deadly violent attacks and counter-attacks causing loss of lives, property, homelessness and destitution. The violent conflict between the two countries is into the second week as the United Nations Security Council had an open debate last Sunday, called the “Situation in the Middle East”. The Indian United Nations’ Permanent Representative (UNPR), Ambassador T.S. Tirumurti made a tightropewalk in making a statement on the crisis which left the observers and analysts tearing their hair in comprehending it.

While the statement, in facts and principles, reflected India’s commitment to two-State arrangement, and to peace and human rights; in diplomatic terms, it shows India’s as-usual balancing act. But on a deeper analysis, it shows New Delhi’s continuing confusion about taking clear and categorical positions on international issues.

The Indian UNPR said, “we condemn the indiscriminate rocket firings from Gaza targeting the civilian population in Israeland the retaliatory strikes into Gaza, which have caused immense suffering and resulted in deaths.” He mentioned that India had lost one of its citizens, a caregiver in Ashkelon, 30-year-old Soumya Santosh from Kerala. He further said that, “Immediate de-escalation is the need of the hour, so as to arrest any further slide towards the brink. We urge both sides to show extreme restraint, desist from actions that exacerbate tensions, and refrain from attempts to unilaterally change the existing status-quo, including in East Jerusalem and its neighbourhood”.

In the closed-door meetings of the 15-member UNSC which did not result in any joint statement, prior to the open debate, India had expressed its concern over theviolence in Jerusalem, especially on Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount during the holy month of Ramzan and over the possible eviction of Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan in the neighbourhoodof East Jerusalem and the Israeli families trying to occupy the property of the evacuees.

Obviously, the eviction process was one of the triggers of Arab protests in the last week of Ramzan. Fearing an unrest, the Israeli forces sieged the Al Aqsa mosque, the third biggest holy cite of Islam and sought to flush out those inside the mosque including worshippers in Ramzan by using tear gas, water cannons, stun grenades etc. The Mosques is claimed both by Muslims and Christians and Jews are not allowed into it. At any rate, the seizure of the mosque in West Bank apparently provoked the Hamas in Gaza strip to fire rockets into Israel territory killing and wounding civilians. In retaliation, Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) started bombing Gaza.

The rocket attacks, above 3000 fired from Gaza, killed 12 people including a soldier, two Thai nationals and an Indian citizen and injured many. In bombing by IDF, so far, as per the available information, 213 people in Gaza were killed, out of which 61 were children 52 women, and about 2000 have been wounded. Around 425 buildings have been destroyed including those housing Associated Press and other international media organisations. Israel claims they have destroyed several rocket launch-pads and have killed many commanders of Hamas.

While many world leaders including US President Joe Biden have urged restrain and a ceasefire, and countries like Egypt and Qatar interlocuting for the same, no cessation of the conflict seems to be on the cards. The Egyptians leaders claim, “we are close and it could be reached in 2 days maximum”. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuasserted that “Israel Defence forces will continue to act as necessary to restore peace and security to all residents of Israel” reiterating his ‘muscular’ approach.

Analysing the Indian stand, we see a lack of clarity in its exposition. Diplomatically, New Delhi seems to have failed to earn the goodwill of either Palestine or Israel, whilst the world leaders keep guessing about where India stands. Netanyahu tweeted his thanks to all those countries that resolutely stood by Israel and its right to self-defence against terrorist attacks by posting their flags, but the tricolour was not one of them.

Let us decode the statement of the India’s Permanent Representative at the UN. New Delhi’s position is that the violence started in East Jerusalem a week back referring to clashes in the Al Aqsa mosque, Seikh Jarrah and Silwan. This means that the rockets fired by Hamas was not the trigger. Second, New Delhi urges both sides to refrain from attempts to unilaterally change the existing status quo, including in East Jerusalem and its neighbourhood. Here it is Israel which is trying to change the status quo by evicting the families and deploying troops in the Mosque compound.

Third, New Delhi is referring to the Mosque as Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount, which means both Muslims and Jews have claim to it whereas Palestine believes it is only theirs. New Delhi is endorsing that it is both Jewish and Islamic. Fourth, New Delhi condemns the rocket attacks, rightly so, but there is no mention of retribution by IDF, which, many would say, is heavily disproportionate. Fifth, New Delhi’s support to two-nation theory without mentioning East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine does not hold water. Observers may call it symbolism and lip-sympathy.

The hard reality of India’s position vis-a-vis the Israel-Palestine conflict is that since 1948, when Palestine was bifurcated and Israel was created, India has been supporting Palestine. Although New Delhi recognised Israel in 1950, it had no diplomatic connection with it. New Delhi continued to support the Palestine cause until BJP came to power in 1998 and again in 2014.  With BJP at the helm, New Delhi’s attitude to Israel took a dramatic turn. In fact, it was articulated nicely by Brajesh Mishra, then India’s National Security Adviser, in 2003, which led to the dream of a strategic triangle between Israel, India and the US.

In a speech at a dinner of the American Jewish Committee Mishra said, “Our principal theme here today is a collective remembrance of the horrors of terrorism and a celebration of the alliance of free societies involved in combating this scourge. The US, India and Israel have all been prime targets of terrorism. They have to jointly face the same ugly face of modern-day terrorism”.

In 2014, since Narendra Modi became Prime Minister, he made radical shift of our foreign policy in favour Israel.  From 2017, East Jerusalem was no more mentioned in any official communique, and in 2018, Modi visiting Israel, the first Prime Minister of India to do so, de-hyphenated Palestine and Israel. It wasperhaps in order as Israel, despite facing New Delhi’s diplomatic indifference, has stood by India in all its wars in 1962,1965, 1971 and 1999 in Kargil.

So, having acknowledged Israel as a friend-in-need, should New Delhi not use its goodwill to stop the violence against the Palestiniancivilians,and further occupation of their land, lift the siege of their cities, and remind Israel of the violation of protocols and international agreements?Furthermore, New Delhi should dissuade countries from supporting a terrorist organisation like Hamas. To put it pithily, New Delhi need not disown Palestine and unfriend Israel.  ---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 14 May 2021

US Exiting Afghanistan

QUAD SHOULD STEP IN

By Dr. D. K. Giri

(Prof. International Politics, JIMMC)

Violence has spiked in Afghanistan since Americans declared to withdraw their remaining troops. They had given the deadline 1^st of May under Donald Trump administration; Joe Biden extended it to September 11, the 20^th anniversary of the twin-tower attack. Americans entered Afghanistan in order to flush out Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the attack in the United states. Taliban, however, are treating 1^st May as the deadline, and have stepped up the violent assaults on Afghan government agencies and the civilians. Not yet engaging the American forces, they are waiting perhaps for the September deadline.

The violence by Taliban points to the things that are about to come. The Interior Ministry on Monday last said that around 11 people were killed by a bomb that exploded in a bus in Southeastern Zabul province. It was in fact followed by the carnage two days before Monday, outside a school in Kabul when a series of bombs went off killing 50 people and woundingover 100, many of them young girls. Taliban is making it loud and clear its attitude about women receiving education and about non-Sunni population.

It may have two motivations in unleashing the violence. One, to warn the Americans that unless they keep the second deadline, they could engage the Americans too. Second, they would continue to attack until the Americans and NATO forces have withdrawn. Taliban, in fact,is adamant that they will not enter into any more negotiations until all the foreign forces are withdrawn from their soil.

Whatever be the drivers for Talibanic violence, the US withdrawal leaves Afghanistan in the lurch, abandoning the country to bombers of school kids and innocent civilians. The US, the reigning super power with a mighty military does help the helpless countries when their independence and human rights are threatened. But it does not do so pretty strategically. The US often-times creates a monster and then decides to fight it. Be it Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Marcos in Philippines, authoritarian regime in China, and Mujahedinin Afghanistan,who later became Taliban and the Military dictatorship in Pakistan.

In relation to Afghanistan, let us recall that America heavily supported Pakistan to create and nurture Mujahedin to drive out the Soviets. Many of the Mujahedin leaders went on to form Taliban actively supported by the Pakistani army. Although Soviets had withdrawn and subsequently, due to their own disintegration, lost interest and influence over Afghanistan. But Pakistan continued to meddle in that country and wanted a puppet government with Taliban helming it.

Americans interest in Afghanistan dwindled and Pakistani-backed Taliban took over the country. Islamabad used most of its military support received from the US in cross-border terrorism against India. Also, it was no accident that in 1999, Pakistani terrorists hijacked an Indian plane, Indian Airlines 814 and took it to Kandahar to negotiate with Indian government for the release of dreaded terrorist Masood Azhar and two of his accomplices.

Americans stormed back to Afghanistan after the terror attack on the World Trade Centre in New York City. They came to hunt down Bin Laden who was sheltered by the Taliban. It is another matter, after 11 years Osama Bin Laden was found and killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan. They are now leaving the country without completing the work, vanquishing the enemy, that is Taliban. Will Taliban and other terrorist groups associated with it not bite back? Without putting a viable alternative in place to rein in on Taliban, the exit of Americans defies comprehension. Perhaps, Americans think they can bounce back should such an eventuality arise threatening their security and interests.

Understandably, the opinion on American withdrawal is divided. In the Senate, Mitch McConnell called the plan reckless and a grave mistake. He said: “it is a retreat in the face of an enemy that has not yet been vanquished and abdication of American leadership”. Some fear that US exit will lead to the collapse of the government in Kabul and so will the gains made in social development, health, education, women’s rights and so on. Government supporters say they will link with the Kabul government diplomatically and extend necessary political support.

Furthermore, the US knows that it has big strategic interest in the world. It has to deal with an aggressive and assertive Russia, nuclear-ambitious North Korea, and Iran, and the competition for supremacy emerging from an expansionist China. In fact, the challenge from China should be the overriding concern for Americans. And they should realise that the very challenge may manifest in a big way in Afghanistan and will tell upon the security of India-Pacific region. Americans are investing heavily their diplomatic and other resources in firewalling the region with Quad.

How will the challenge play out in Afghanistan? Quad is created to contain China. Being the immediate neighbour, India faces the Chinese hunger for territory and hegemonic supremacy. Americans want to develop India as a counter-weight to China. This strategy is shaping slow due to New Delhi dithering and clinging on to its so-called strategic autonomy. However, the American and Indian formal alliance will happen sooner or later. In the meantime, if Afghanistan is left alone, Pakistan at the behest of its new mentor China, will use it to sponsor terrorism in other countries. They will target and engage New Delhi first, so that it cannot proceed with its Quad project.

Is America not giving an opening in Afghanistan to China and even Russia to challenge its supremacy? China has openly derided Quad as an anti-Beijing grouping. Even Russia has expressed its disapproval of Quad. Only days ago, China has threatened Bangladesh with serious reprisals if Dhaka was to have any kind of association with the Quad. The Chinese Ambassador to Bangladesh Li Jimming has announced in Dhaka that the bilateral ties “will be substantially damaged” if Bangladesh goes anywhere near the Quad.

Dhaka has predictably reacted to the threat as unfortunateand aggressive and its Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen has retorted: “we are an independent and sovereign state and we decide our foreign policy”. Having said that, he has sought to perhaps placate the Chinese as he said, Bangladesh has been following a non-aligned and balanced foreign policy and we will stick to that principle. It is again understandable as Beijing’s strategy is to dominate countries by debt, if not by the military as Americans do. Many countries including Bangladesh are indebted to China and it is demanding its pound of flesh as compliance with its strategic interests.

In sum, it will be imprudent for America to withdraw without an alternative force to support the elected government of Afghanistan in the face of Taliban, who are on the prowl to pull Afghanistanback to the dark, medieval age and let the countries around it feel its heavily negative fallouts. Quad is by far the best option to replace the US as many countries like Britain and France will join this group to foster democracy, human rights and a rule-based order. Time for serious rethink really. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 7 May 2021

Modi-Johnson Summit

AN ENHANCED PARTNERSHIP

By Dr. D.K.Giri

(Prof. International Politics, JIMMC)

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and British Prime Minister BorisJohnson had a virtual summit last Tuesday, which led to an Enhanced Trade Partnership between the two countries. The summit was held on the eve of G7 conclave in Britain attended by Foreign Minister, S. Jaishankar. The two leaders drew the 2030 road-map leadingeventually tosigning of a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Meanwhile, there will be an interim trade agreement signed by mid-2022 culminating later into a Free Trade Agreement.

The Summit assumes significance for more than one reason. Johnson had cancelled his visit to India twice, once last January when he was invited to be the chief guest at the Republic Day, as he had to deal with thescourge of the second surge of the Covid virus in his country, and again in April, when the India got hit by the second wave. Second, both countries have retreated from regional trading arrangements, India from the China-centric Regional comprehensive Economic Partnership, and Britain from the European Union. Third, both countries have been badly hit by the Pandemic and are fighting their way out of it.

Surprisingly, with a deep shared history albeit of colonialism which spawned several common structures, political. bureaucratic, military, educational and social (upper middle class), India and Britain relations have not been as seemly as they should have been. Both countries have been seen as natural allies in the international community. India could substantially join European Community only after Britain was admitted into it as a member in 1973. When I was asking for a membership for India in a non-governmental international entity where a British organisation was a member, the Swedish organisation lobbying for us suggested that we should secure the support of the UK member too.

While New Delhi has been able to build solid relations with countries like France, Germany and USA, the bilateralism with the United Kingdom has lagged. Although the British Labour Party in Government announced the independence of India n 1947, it has been more hostile than the conservatives to India. In 1997, 24 years ago, when the British ForeignSecretary Robin Cook accompanied the Queen on a state visit, he raised the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination. Cook was of course an out-spoken, garrulous politician who had to demit office mid-stream.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown tried to repair the relations, but not to great effect. Their successor, Jeremy Corbyn who led the Labour party to two defeats displayed more negative attitude towards India by meddling in Kashmir and other domestic issues like the farmers’ agitation against the three new laws passed by the Indian government.

Admittedly, the large diaspora in Britain from the Indian sub-continent plays into British electoral politics. Yet the leaders from the Conservative Parties have seen India as a rising country and have respected New Delhi’s strategic autonomy. From John Major, who supported India’s globalisation plans, to David Cameroon who wanted to deepen the relations, to Theresa May who acknowledged India’s sovereignty in determining its domestic issues, to flamboyant Johnson promising to take the relations to a new paradigm. It should be noted that Johnson was in the forefront of the campaign to exit European Union. Therefore, Johnson will have to expand the trading and strategic links of Britain to compensate for the loss of such ties with the EU. India seems to be the first stop on that journey.

The relations between India and Britain were soured by mutual perception and prejudices. Britain tilted towards Pakistan resenting India’s international stature Under JL Nehru and took long to shed its superiority complex. Likewise, India suffered from a colonial hangover and looked away from Britain despite being a big member of the Commonwealth. Much water has flown since down the Thames and the Ganges. Both countries now deal with each other as two important members of the international community.

Against the above backdrop, the recent summit should be seen and appreciated for the headway achieved so far. To start with, Johnson announced a trade and investment package of one billion pounds and shared with Modi that Serum Institute has made an investment of 240 million pounds to manufacture nasal vaccines for Covid. Around the Summit, apart from theEnhanced partnership, eight other agreements were signed. The Partnership is based on five pillars: trade and economy, defense and security, climate action, health and people-to-people contact. All these agreements are expected to generate 25000 new direct and indirect jobs in India. Both leaders agreed to double the volume of their trade by 2030.

As per the Agreement, Britain will open up Indian fisheries, allow the nurses to seek jobs and accept the seafarers’credentials. In return, India will allow the import of fruits and medical devices under UK certificate of free sale. Both countries have agreed to move towards a social security agreement. The two sides resolved to work towards reciprocal opening up of legal services. The other agreements included emerging technologies,digital infrastructure and data policies, cooperation in telecommunications and ICT, customs cooperation, and collaboration on medical product regulations etc.

Significantly, a Memorandum on Migration and Mobility partnership was signed. The MoU is meant to facilitate legal movement of students and professionals and will check illegal migration. Under this understanding, about 3000 young Indian professionals every year could get employment in the UK for two years without facing the labour market test.

Both Modi and Johnson agreed to enhance the defense ties too. They decided to increase the maritime and industrial collaboration. Maritime information will hence forth be shared between the two sides. India invited UK to join India’s naval information fusion Centre and to participate in the trilateral naval exercises. Another notable step taken is to sign a Logistics Memorandum of Understanding between the armed forces.

The partnership agreement and the road-map augur well for both the leaders. Johnson is looking out for new opportunities for Britain especially after he led his country to withdraw from the European Union. He has shown interest in joining the India-Pacific security arrangement led by the Quad. For him, India should be a big market and player to engage with.

Likewise, Modi’s international image has got a drubbing after he misread the Covid situation, the onslaught of the second surge. In a matter of months, Modi who was feted by the international community for deftly handling the pandemic, producing and supplying abroad the vaccines, became an object of sympathy for many global leaders. He desperately needed recognition and formal collaboration like he got from Britain. This should give him a new lease of life in international politics.

To be sure, Modi can exult in the outcome of the Summit; he tweeted, “had a productive virtual summit with my friend UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson”. Modi will have to fix the health care system, efficiently disburse the aid pouring in from countries, save lives by providing hospital beds and oxygen, and check the spread of the virus by vaccinating people and enforcing the protocols. The death and destruction caused by the second surge will haunt Modi unless he fixes things quickly. He should not forget the practical reality, that is the local is global. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)