|
|
|
|
|
|
Events and Issues
People’s Anger & Anguish: WILL UP REMOVE CRACKDOWN?, By Insaf, 1 May 2021 |
|
|
Round The States
New Delhi, 1 May 2021
People’s
Anger & Anguish
WILL UP
REMOVE CRACKDOWN?
By Insaf
Three cheers Supreme
Court. Its direction should, fingers crossed, stop Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister
Yogi Adityanath in his tracks. During the suo moto hearing on issues related to
oxygen supply, drug supply, and vaccine policy, on Friday last, the apex court
specifically directed there ‘should not be any clampdown on information.’ Justice
DY Chandrachud said: “We will treat it as contempt of court if such grievances
are considered for action. Let a strong message go to all the States and DGP of
States that clampdown of info is contrary to basic precepts…We want to make it
very clear that if citizens communicate their grievance on social media and the
internet, it cannot be said it’s wrong information.”Yogi should certainly make
a note for not only has he claimed there is no shortage of oxygen, contrary to reports,
but worse directed his administration to take ‘civil or criminal action against
Covid-19 patients, their families or independent volunteers who issue appeals
via social media platforms for oxygen and other medical assistance.’
The diktat has been
challenged. On Wednesday last, a letter petition by social activist Saket Gokhale
was moved before Allahabad High Court urging the government be asked to cease
such action. He claimed that such appeals citing shortage in oxygen and drugs
are being charged under the “false pretext” of spreading misleading information
to target the state government. The letter said: filing such criminal cases “is
a gross misuse of the powers of the state” and is illegal coercive action that
is being taken to “maintain the image of the government” and to clamp down on
any criticism of their handling of the pandemic and to present a fake picture
that everything is hunky dory in the state.” According to reports Yogi’s diktat
has led to volunteers and student groups to refrain from helping anymore lest
they get entangled in legal cases. And while, there can be hope for apex court’s
order doing wonders here, the Centre too must be cautious. It must think twice
before arm-twisting social media platforms from taking down posts such as: #Oxygenshortage,
#OxygenCrisis, #ModiMadeDisaster, “When Dead Bodies were Burning, Nero was busy doing election rallies” … Instead
it would do well to realise the depth of the people’s anger and agony against it.
After all it promised them “Achhe Din” and must have the courage to admit its
mistake. Is it asking for too much?
*******
Vaccine Drive Hiccups?
Centre’s vaccination
drive for 18-45 age group may not start on May 1. Unwise and impractical is a
clear message to it from most States. Not unreasonable but justified on two
counts: One, big vaccine shortage and two, the priority is to give the 2nd
dose to those 45 years plus. Thus, Madhya Pradesh has asked the younger lot to
‘have patience and not panic as it is hoped to get vaccine doses by May 3’;
Kerala said ‘The slot for first dose will be allowed for online booking only
after giving preference to those taking the 2nd dose’; Maharashtra
said it can’t start with ‘a stock of 3 lakh doses’ and shall do so only when
‘it has at least 25-30 lakh to begin with’; Delhi informed ‘we will let you
know in a couple of days or so. We haven’t received the schedule from companies
yet, which includes how many vials will reach on which dates’; Gujarat said it
has ‘ordered 2.5 crore doses’ and expects ‘at least a part to be made available
within 15 days and that’s when it would begin’; Punjab said Covaxin price was
on higher side of Rs 600 but as it’s brought down to Rs 400 they will now
consider. Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Bihar and Assam have already
displayed unavailability of slots for the new group. The Centre grand
announcement shall turn out to be a damn squib. Plus, till Wednesday midnight,
1.33-odd crore new sign-ins were registered online, out of 59.46 crore in that
age group. Too tall an order. Shouldn’t it have done its homework rather than
playing to the gallery both locally and globally?
*******]
EC Authority On Test
A battered
NirvachanSadan has a big challenge ahead. Will it retrieve its reputation and
ensure its Covid protocols are strictly followed this time round on vote
counting day, May 2nd? It has now put a ban on all victory
processions following the results in Kerala, Assam, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and
Puducherry, plus, capped the number to two persons to accompany the winning
candidate to receive the election certificate, “in view of the surge in Covid-19 cases
throughout the country”. Obviously, it can’t admit to getting its act together
only after hearing a mouthful from Madras High Court on Monday last for
allowing political parties to violate the protocols during rallies, and being
directed to have a blueprint before counting, else it would stop it, for “this
state does not succumb to your idiosyncrasies any further!”. It’s observations
such as “ You have been singularly lacking any kind of exercise of authority…
Were you on another planet when the election rallies were held…Your officers
should be booked on murder charges probably…” were damning. On Friday last
hearing, while it passed the buck on the SDMA for not following protocols, it
petitioned the Court to ‘restrict the media from reporting on oral
observations,’ as it was disappointed “these reports have tarnished the image
of the ECI as an independent constitutional agency that is entrusted with the
constitutional responsibility of conducting elections.” Reason enough for press
freedom institutions to cry foul?
*******
Uttarakhand Wakes Up
If only common sense
had prevailed, Uttarakhand government may have spared itself as well as Prime
Minister Modi the mocking tweets for holding the Maha Kumbh mela. Perhaps,
realising his folly finally, Chief Minister Tirath Singh Rawat government seeks
to make amends. On Thursday last, he announced the ‘Char Dham Yatra’ stands
suspended, saying “Conducting the yatra amid the raging pandemic is
not possible. Only priests of the four temples at Badrinath, Kedarnath,
Yamunotri and Gangotri will perform rituals and puja.” But the seriousness must
be questioned. For, he did not stop the last shahi snanat theKumbh mela
despite numbers going up and allowed 1,350-odd seers from various akharas and
25,000 devotees to bathe in Brahmkund at Har Ki Pauri on Tuesday. And
trust the district administration to announce a ‘corona curfew’ from April 28
to May 3 morning, only when the mega event is over. Figures on Wednesday last
show the State recorded the highest single-day spike of 6,054 Covid-19 cases, taking
the cumulative tally to 1,68,616, while 108 deaths pushed the toll to 2,417.
Make note of Rawat’s reply to a question on the spike in death rate: “We are
surrounded by Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and UP from where critical patients
often travel to Uttarakhand for treatment. As such, it becomes difficult for us
to save them…” Some people it is said will never learn!
*******
The Powerful Politician
Kudos to Karnataka
High Court. It has confirmed what the political class would term as mere
hearsay. While turning down a bail plea of astrologer Yuvaraj Swami, accused in
cases of cheating politicians, businessmen and even a former HC judge, the
court noted that though he has stated in his voluntary statement he has paid
amounts to politicians and other persons and assured jobs, “the petitioner
seems to be a middleman and highly influential person having contact with
ministers, otherwise it is not possible to promise or assure providing or
securing jobs like Governor, chairman of boards…”Bengaluru police had arrested
Swami in December 2020 for allegedly cheating people of crores of rupees by
promising them high positions in government.A former judge had followed with a
complaint saying he had paid Swami Rs 8.5 crore through RTGS and cash after
“he took her to meet top political leaders to convince her to make payments in
2018-19.” The court reprimanded the judge for attempting to pay a “bribe for
securing the post of Governor”, saying he has ‘lowered the prestige of judges
and Governor’s post image.’ This apart, Bengaluru magistrate court was pulled
up for granting bail to Yuvaraj in the retired judge’s case, plus the State
government too for not seeking cancellation of the bail granted by the
magistrate. But there’s more to the case. Investigations by Crime Branch have
revealed that a former MP was swindled by him of Rs 20 crore by promising
renomination to Parliament and a ministerial position! But here the MP has not
filed a complaint. Lest it opens a Pandora’s Box. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Nepal Govt Formation: IS INDIA NEUTRAL?, By Dr D.K.Giri, 28 May 2021 |
|
|
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)
|
|
Israel-Palestine Clashes: INDIA’S BALANCING ACT, By Dr D.K.Giri, 21 May 2021 |
|
|
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)
|
|
US Exiting Afghanistan: QUAD SHOULD STEP IN, By Dr. D. K. Giri, 14 May 2021 |
|
|
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 1st of May under Donald Trump
administration; Joe Biden extended it to September 11, the 20th 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 1st 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)
|
|
Modi-Johnson Summit: AN ENHANCED PARTNERSHIP, By Dr. D.K.Giri, 7 May 2021 |
|
|
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)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Next > End >>
| Results 964 - 972 of 6004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|